Congratulations to America!

[TomUK]

Marvellous news about the healthcare bill. I know that to some it's not particularly welcome but I firmly believes that in years to come this will be looked back upon as one of the defining moments of American history.

 

[Kenneth Weaver]

I believe it will be looked upon as a defining moment too. I believe it will be defined as among the worst choices we've ever made. I was infuriated when they passed this thing. I'm still infuriated.

 

[TomUK]

Would you mind expanding a little on that? Perhaps it's the issue's being reported over here but most people just seem shocked it wasn't put in place years ago and can't quite understand the vehement opposition.

 

[Kenneth Weaver]

In general? For about 100 years the Federal govt has been grabbing more and more power. People basically didn't notice. But between Bush and Obama, the Fed has increased massively in size, and has begun spending even more enormous amounts of our money. We were founded as a constitutional republic with limited, enumerated federal powers. They've overreached by a lot, and people generally--despite what a lot of media would have you believe--don't like it. Americans, as a rule, don't trust the state. And history bears out that they're probably right to be skeptical.

Me? I'm a Libertarian. I have very pronounced philosophical reasons to be opposed to bills like this. Governments are not benevolent. Governments, despite the best intentions, are cruel. They are necessary evils. And they are the single most inefficient organization in a nation. They are necessary, but they should be kept as small and emaciated as possible.

And further, you cannot give the state control of something and retain control yourself. You can't have it both ways. When a government pays for something, they can tell you what to do with it. How to use it. When you can use it, or what you can use it for. And they will. I don't understand how the same people who are so enraged at past government abuses of power can stand there with a straight face and advocate giving the government more power over their lives. It's insane.

I'm living in New Zealand right now. They have socialized healthcare. Not only does it leave something to be desired as far as quality, but people overuse it, they don't have half the drugs we do in the US, because the state can't afford it, etc. My wife has two people in her immediate family who have suffered catastrophic medical mistakes. One died, one lost the use of her arm forever. That happens, of course, anywhere. But in this public system, the family had absolutely no recourse because they've done what we are likely to do under a public system--make it nearly impossible or impossible altogether to file a lawsuit. But the true insidiousness of this sort of thing is that every last person on the street thinks they have every right in the world to tell another person what they can and can't do with themselves. After all, "I'm paying for your care." And they won't hesitate to lobby the state to enforce that view. And when the state subsidizes something, they will tell it what to do--and being politicians, they will politicize it.

This sort of collectivism makes virtually anything justifiable so long as the public supports it. Make it illegal to smoke? Sure. The people have to pay for the care of smokers. Make it illegal to eat transfats and salt? Sure. We're already seeing this sort of attitude among some in the US. How pronounced is it going to be when they're paying for everyone's care?

We've been marching down the road to collectivist statism for a long time, but between Bush and Obama, it's been shoved forward hard in the past decade. People are scared of that. Believe it or not, this is not about Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative. This is about individualism vs statism. Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, McCain, Obama... all statists. The question is whether we want a society in which we have to justify our rights to the state, or a society in which the government has to justify its powers to us. I like the latter. And that necessarily involves a government with as little power as possible.

 

[AngCath]

I for one stayed up to watch the votes on C-SPAN. I am happy about this bill and welcome it as a long-awaited major step in the right direction.

 

[mark46]

When our president since the legislation, thew US will cease to be the only country in the civized world that does not guarantee its people health care, or perhaps there was one others.

As another poster indicated, this has indeed been almost 100 years in the making. The federal government now runs Social Security, Medicare and now guarantees access to health care for everyone.

With this law, no longer will insurancwe companies be able to cancel policies whenever they wish, have lifetime maximums or have deny coverage beacuse of preconditions.
============================

I submit that there are indeed secular governmental models where the poor and sick should not be protected. I leave those arguments for the philosophers.

For me, this is one of the miost important days in Americn history.
============================

 

[Polycarp1]

Would you mind expanding a little on that? Perhaps it's the issue's being reported over here but most people just seem shocked it wasn't put in place years ago and can't quite understand the vehement opposition.

Kenneth Weaver outlines the sane, reasonable arguments against it quite lucidly. I have seen a large number of reports of (private-sector) insurance companies denying payments of covered procedures and medicines, not as a misunderstanding but as company policy. And some unscrupulous news commentators here have misrepresented the law in ways calculated to foment unthinking opposition to it on the part of those who trust them.

It's interesting that it was President Truman who first called for this sort of measure, prior to my birth, and I turn 62 this fall.

 

[Kenneth Weaver]

I for one stayed up to watch the votes on C-SPAN. I am happy about this bill and welcome it as a long-awaited major step in the right direction.

When our president since the legislation, thew US will cease to be the only country in the civized world that does not guarantee its people health care, or perhaps there was one others.

As another poster indicated, this has indeed been almost 100 years in the making. The federal government now runs Social Security, Medicare and now guarantees access to health care for everyone.

It doesn't bother you at all that Social Security and Medicare are both abject failures? Look at the numbers on those programs.

With this law, no longer will insurancwe companies be able to cancel policies whenever they wish, have lifetime maximums or have deny coverage beacuse of preconditions.
============================

I submit that there are indeed secular governmental models where the poor and sick should not be protected. I leave those arguments for the philosophers.

For me, this is one of the miost important days in Americn history.
============================

The bill will force the insurance companies to play nice, yes. At the expense of market distortions which are always destructive. Using the commerce clause to enforce regular interstate commerce of insurance would be the better choice. Companies who have to compete have to provide better services for less money. We see it work every day. Insurance is no different. But the states have been keeping that from happening for years.

Kenneth Weaver outlines the sane, reasonable arguments against it quite lucidly. I have seen a large number of reports of (private-sector) insurance companies denying payments of covered procedures and medicines, not as a misunderstanding but as company policy. And some unscrupulous news commentators here have misrepresented the law in ways calculated to foment unthinking opposition to it on the part of those who trust them.

It's interesting that it was President Truman who first called for this sort of measure, prior to my birth, and I turn 62 this fall.

Thank you. I have to disagree on one point though. The first call for this sort of measure (in the US) was president FDR, in his 'second bill of rights', not Truman. Which, if you read it, assumes that rights come from the state--an idea that has always been present under kings, tyrants, and dictators. The original bill of rights outlined ways in which the state cannot violate the individual; it is based on a philosophy that assumes that the individual's rights were his by virtue of his very existence.

My rights do not come from the state. They belong to me by virtue of the fact that I exist. They come from whatever god you worship, or the universe itself. And any state that has the audacity and arrogance to suggest otherwise needs to be quickly voted out of office. Healthcare, education, a job, home, and recreation are not rights. You have every right to purchase them, to pursue them (And make no mistake, the governments state and federal have been restricting your right to do so for a lot of years, especially when it comes to healthcare.)

When a state presumes to benevolently issue rights to the citizens, it also presumes it can take them away.

And all of this is just based on philosophy. The math doesn't look good either. When was the last time the US federal government ran a program that came in under cost and produced the claimed results? Post office? Amtrak? Medicare? Social Security? Nope. Sorry. All abject failures.

But quite separate from all of this: When you hand power to the party or guy you like, it doesn't go away when your guy leaves. For all of you who were fine giving Bush power, I've got bad news. You gave the same powers to Obama. For all of you who were fine with giving Clinton more power, you gave that same power to Bush. States are not people. They are machines. And what happens when a bad guy gains control of a machine with too much power? "It can't happen here" is not a valid argument. No nation that has ever voted in its own oppressors ever thought that it would happen in their nation.

 

[Kenneth Weaver]

I submit that there are indeed secular governmental models where the poor and sick should not be protected. I leave those arguments for the philosophers.
============================

That's a nice emotive statement, but it completely misses the point. First, this bill will not protect the poor and sick. That's why we are against it. It will do far more harm than good. We don't hate poor people as you seem to believe. On the contrary, we believe that this bill will deny needed medical care to millions, cause costs to rise, sap individual initiative, destroy jobs, trap the poor in poverty and dependence--just like most welfare systems--block innovations that would make us both healthier and wealthier and politicize that which should not be politicized. It will increase, not decrease, lobbying and special interests. It will be used to buy votes from particular demographics--primarily the elderly and poor--just like most subsidies already are used to buy votes.

And as for 'leaving those arguments to the philosophers'... Policy must be based on principles. If not, anything that is emotionally appealing will be pursued, regardless of the evidence against it. Emotions are not principles. Compassion is not a principle. Just because you believe that it's compassionate to the poor and sick to pass this bill doesn't make it true.

 

[Finella]

The insurance corporations have been taking away people's rights to healthcare for decades -- driving up costs while unfairly denying care to people who cannot afford it. Is it somehow better when private corporations interfere with our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than libertarians' (perceived) government interference of the same? Government or corporate, the power will rise up, wherever it can. Both have good and evil sides.

Everyone has had the option to purchase healthcare all this time, but who can afford it? Cancer treatment? Major surgery? And the quality sucks compared to nations who have socialized medicine. Look at the infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates, as just off-my-head examples. It's shameful.

It's all been hashed out over and over here over the the TV and radio talk shows, etc., but the rhetoric has become more extreme and hot-headed and I'm personally tired of the panic of the opposition. I'm glad the Democrats finally pulled themselves together and passed this bill. My in-laws are in the UK and are generally happy with the NHS, and I do not fear anything in this bill (which institutes nothing like the NHS, but even if it did, I would love it). I think when people begin to see that it's not the huge government takeover they've been led to believe it is, they too will welcome the bill. Huzzah!!!

 

[Polycarp1]

That's a nice emotive statement, but it completely misses the point. First, this bill will not protect the poor and sick. That's why we are against it. It will do far more harm than good. We don't hate poor people as you seem to believe. On the contrary, we believe that this bill will deny needed medical care to millions, cause costs to rise, sap individual initiative, destroy jobs, trap the poor in poverty and dependence--just like most welfare systems--block innovations that would make us both healthier and wealthier and politicize that which should not be politicized. It will increase, not decrease, lobbying and special interests. It will be used to buy votes from particular demographics--primarily the elderly and poor--just like most subsidies already are used to buy votes.

And as for 'leaving those arguments to the philosophers'... Policy must be based on principles. If not, anything that is emotionally appealing will be pursued, regardless of the evidence against it. Emotions are not principles. Compassion is not a principle. Just because you believe that it's compassionate to the poor and sick to pass this bill doesn't make it true.

I see issues with the current legislation, but I found my opinions on the Parables of the Good Samaritan and of the Last Judgment ("Sheep and Goats"), and believe this fixes a part of the problem, where doing nothing to repair the current American health care system (the only alternative so far proposed) is the worse choice for a Christian. And one of my dearest friends is an Objectivist Libertarian Christian whose views seem to mirror yours, Kenneth, so kindly don't take my philosophical/theological disagreement as being personally directed. Ideally care would be povided where needed, and we would all foot the bill to the extent we can willingly. But there's a gap between real and ideal, and I take my stand where I believe it to be right to do so. As do you, and I recognize and honor that.

 

[MKJ]

I always find the American conviction that their own government, made up of themselves, is deeply against them, disturbing. Even moreso if it's actually true.

I just don't see the same attitude in other Western countries. THere can be cynicism toward politicians motives to some extent, and frustration with bureaucracy - though some nations seem to make the latter a proud part of their self-image. But overall, they see the government as the body which does the things they as a people empower them to do. I don't feel like our universal health care is handing over power to the government, I feel like I've told the government I want universal health care.

Even a stupid program that was poorly implemented, like the gun registry - was what large numbers of people wanted. Too bad my fellow citizens don't all see things my way, but that's the price of living in society.

Given their seeming hatred of their own political structure, it is strange they seem to think it is better than that of other nations, and even at times seem to think it ought to be spread elsewhere.

In any case, such a divide between citizens and governments is never a stable situation.