Redistribution: key goal of health care bill

[rameumptom]

Well, the truth finally came out. Why did we get such a garbage health care bill that doesn't increase competition, reduce costs, reduce tort expense, increase the number of medical personnel, etc?

Because its chief goal was to redistribute the wealth of the country. Here is what Senator Max Baucus of my former state of Montana admitted:

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism. Those Democrats in Congress who voted for this are either pro-Marxist (Reid and Pelosi), or they were bribed to vote for it (Landrieu and Nelson).

[InquisitiveSoul]

It's not Health Care Reform, it's Health Insurance AND MORE Reform.

What does student loans have to do with Health Care? The key concept which many of the sheep don't understand, these folks aren't taking from the rich to give to the poor, they are taking from the middle class to buy votes from the free riders. Eventually their policies eliminate the middle class as the gap between the rich and the middle class widen.

It would be nice if these elected "Representatives" had the best interest of the United States in mind. As for the Senate, I'd like to see the Senators chosen by the State Legislator again.

[mnn727]

While I dislike THIS health care bill, I believe we need one - a single payer system similiar to England or the provincial ones in Canada.

We are already paying for the poor/uninsured to go to the ER's after the problem has gotten severe when if they had access to health care they could have solved the problem with a doctors visit before it got severe. Anyone with health insurance or who has visited a hospital is already paying for this misuse of ER's with increased costs.

I find having compassion for the less fortunate to worth a bit out of my poclet -- too bad this health care bill was sabatoged so its not going to do what it should do.

Edited March 30, 2010 by mnn727

[FlaviusHambonius]

I was listening to the radio this morning before going to work and they broadcasted some of Howard Deans comments that basically echoed Baucus' comments -- but Dean came right out and said that it was a 'redistribution' of the wealth.

[Miss_Mae]

mnn: I agree that the problem is more complex than just doing nothing. However, I don't believe that helping the poor by force is good on any level. Not only is it unjust and a complete deprivation of agency (the whole reason Christ died or us), but it actually prevents some really great blessings--i.e. those associated with freely giving and freely receiving. When we are allowed to be charitable we gain a love for those we serve. When we are forced to do so, we are removed from process and see little of the blessings firsthand. On the other side, those who freely receive feel loved and appreciated, while those who are given help by law, tend to feel more entitled and are emotionally-removed from the benefits.

There is too much of this loss of agency in our whole system--not just the health bill. I think we really need to just go back to the basic principles of our Constitution. However, getting there from where we are will be like a tree nearly chopped down: It will either have to fall completely and give seed to a new tree, or it will need to be mended, propped up, dunged, pruned, etc. etc. until it slowly, but surely, becomes strong again. What I mean by this is that, we need to make things right, but not at the expense of those who have lost property and opportunity b/c of the current system. It needs to happen slowly, but surely.

[talisyn]

How sad. You do know, of course, that if people had decent wages they would be able to pay for their own health care. That small fact seems to be getting lost in all 'The Marxists are Coming(!!!!!)' rhetoric.

BTW, and it seems it cannot be stated enough, those rights that are held so dear from the US Constitution were not in the original Constitution, they are amendments to the original document. The original, unchanging, holy document

[aharon]

How sad. You do know, of course, that if people had decent wages they would be able to pay for their own health care. That small fact seems to be getting lost in all 'The Marxists are Coming(!!!!!)' rhetoric.

BTW, and it seems it cannot be stated enough, those rights that are held so dear from the US Constitution were not in the original Constitution, they are amendments to the original document. The original, unchanging, holy document

I agree about the decent wages part, but by taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not improve anything. It will make the pie smaller, for where is the incentive to work?

Seriously, why should someone work their tail off when they can sit around and collect a welfare check?

The better answer is to free up the market and find ways to drive down the cost of health care, rather than forcing people to give up their money to others.

Some ways that the cost can be driven down is allow the consumers to be more in direct with the doctor. Insurance provides a detachment where people can be free from the cost of health care, and doctors can be allowed to drive up prices. Also, make it easier for people to get into the health care profession. My sister just got her D.A. and it is rediculous the amount of money she had to throw down. Why does it have to be so much? Why not do online schooling to drive down costs? Also, what about doctors using the internet to make house calls? Things like that could help drive down the cost of medical care. And doing those things doesn't take away anyone's money nor does it require fining people if they choose not to have health insurance.

Our government has failed us in so many ways (US) and here we are putting our trust in these yahoos that have gotten us into these long long wars and debted us trillions of dollars! :mad:

Oh boy, I'm getting riled up. Anyways, my thought.

One more thing about the wages... Make incentives for people to improve themselves, rather than incentives to not work. I have heard stories of people who wont go back to work because they get more money from the welfare check.

We got to inspire in people the spirit of entrepreneurism... true, take care of the needy, but don't let the federal government do it! They are the least qualified for it!!! and we all have to feel the force of their blunders. Let other social institutions do it, like churches and non profit organizations. If we are insistent on getting the government involved, then by all means, allow the local or state governments do it, but not the federal. The federal government in charge of things like that is like trying to spit into an anthill 20 feet above the ground.

Edited April 1, 2010 by aharon

[talisyn]

One of the best reasons to earn a paycheck is so you can get $1000/month compared to $600/month. I would love to see real stats on how many people really were on the dole before the current econ crisis. And how many of those people were physically able to work, how many had small kids in the house and couldn't afford daycare, etc. It's hard to work when you have 2 little ones and have to pay $200/month each on childcare, $350/rent, and earn only $975/month in wages before taxes and insurance.

I agree about costs. My brother is going to school to be a medical assistant and if he didn't have the G.I. Bill it would be impossible. Seriously, why is it so much more expensive than, say, an accounting degree? Do colleges think people going into the medical profession are going to make wagonloads of money so they better get their dibs in first? That to me seems to be an even more egregious example of 'redistribution', because it's accepted and even looked upon as a sign of status. Why is redistribution a bad thing when poor people get benefits but a good thing when non-governmental institutions get the goods?

Edited April 1, 2010 by talisyn

[Melissa569]

I'm not sure how I feel about this... I do know I just want something that makes regular doctor vosits more affordable for the poor.

I have financial problems. My husband and I are struggling quite badly right now, barely paying our rent with only a few dollars left afterward.

My big recent drama-- I caught a HORRIBLE flu this month (while at a church activity, no less, lol). For nearly 3 WEEKS, I was suffering with fever, achy body, sore throat, painful ear infection, sinus infection, congestion, and the world's most PAINFUL mucussy cough! Man, I could hardly breath half the time! Couldn't go anywhere, couldn't do anything, couldn't clean my house... I was just lucky I'm currently out of work, other wise I would have been even worse, going out in the cold and working all day instead of resting...

I've been applying online for jobs left and right (most places do it online now, not on paper), but there is just nothing around here! lol. Even when you do find something, you've got competition from 10 other people with more education, training, and experience than you do. So THEY get offered the interview.

Anyway, the cough got REALLY bad... So bad my throat literally got blood-raw from all the constant caughing. Then the mucus began to harden, and I couldn't even cough it up anymore... I was using up bottle after bottle of "NyQuil and DayQuil cold and flu" and Halls Cough drops, just so I could be halfway functional in the daytime, and sleep halfway decent during the night. I was getting worse and worse... Sicker than I had EVER been! Heck, it could have been Swine Flu for all I know!

I have finally recovered now, but only because my neighbor had half a bottle of antibiotics leftover from when she had a similar virus... She gave them to me, and I took them as the bottle instructed (while eating plain white yogurt with live active cultures and a low sugar diet to prevent possible intestinal/bodily candida issues, which antibiotics can cause). Been taking them for 5 days now, and I have FINALLY completely recovered! Wow, I feel great!

But I'm sure I was THIS close to developing pneumonia. And what if my neighbor hadn't been there? What if she weren't my neighbor? How would I have gotten better? What would have happened to me then? I will never know if it was Swine Flu, because there was no way I could have seen a doctor, unless I felt like racking up thousands of dollars in E.R. bills.

I'm only 28, I shoudln't be comming that close to an end. What they need to do is figure something out to where people like me can get help at a reasonable price, when we need it.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Melissa569

[Jamie123]

Redistribution of wealth is a key tenet of Marxism. Those Democrats in Congress who voted for this are either pro-Marxist (Reid and Pelosi), or they were bribed to vote for it (Landrieu and Nelson).

And we all know that Marxists are evil!!

*Comrade Jamie sings "~~We'll keep the red flag flying here!"

[john doe]

And we all know that Marxists are evil!!

*Comrade Jamie sings "~~We'll keep the red flag flying here!"

Yes, yes they are.

[rameumptom]

How sad. You do know, of course, that if people had decent wages they would be able to pay for their own health care. That small fact seems to be getting lost in all 'The Marxists are Coming(!!!!!)' rhetoric.

BTW, and it seems it cannot be stated enough, those rights that are held so dear from the US Constitution were not in the original Constitution, they are amendments to the original document. The original, unchanging, holy document

Two things: First, most of us here agree health care needs to be fixed. However, this new law does not fix it. In fact, it brings in lots of new problems, such as trillions of dollars of waste and expense.

Second, the Bill of Rights are technically a part of the original Constitution. Most of signers of the Constitution would not sign it without guarantees of liberty. Madison had them included in a Bill of Rights that went out with the original Constitution, and most were passed at the exact same time. Those Amendments were established to ensure tyranny did not occur, such as many fear is happening with the ever growing and encroaching government (whether from the neo-cons or Democrats).

[Jamie123]

Yes, yes they are.

Look 'round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,

The sturdy German chants its praise,

In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung

Chicago swells the surging throng.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.

Within its shade we'll live and die,

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

We'll keep the red flag flying here!

*Comrade Jamie polishes his horns.

[talisyn]

Two things: First, most of us here agree health care needs to be fixed. However, this new law does not fix it. In fact, it brings in lots of new problems, such as trillions of dollars of waste and expense.

Second, the Bill of Rights are technically a part of the original Constitution. Most of signers of the Constitution would not sign it without guarantees of liberty. Madison had them included in a Bill of Rights that went out with the original Constitution, and most were passed at the exact same time. Those Amendments were established to ensure tyranny did not occur, such as many fear is happening with the ever growing and encroaching government (whether from the neo-cons or Democrats).

Most signers of the Constitution would not sign it precisely because those rights were not stated in the Constitution. Therefore, they were not in the original Constitution

Edited April 1, 2010 by talisyn
My kingdom for a 'U'

[Just_A_Guy]

Most signers of the Constitution would not sign it precisely because those rights were not stated in the Constitution. Therefore, they were not in the original Constitution

But they reason they weren't in the original Constitution was because many of the framers a) believed the people already had those rights, regardless of whatever fiat the government established; and/or b) didn't visualize a federal government big enough to infringe on those rights in the first place.

[Dravin]

But they reason they weren't in the original Constitution was because many of the framers a) believed the people already had those rights, regardless of whatever fiat the government established; and/or b) didn't visualize a federal government big enough to infringe on those rights in the first place.

Or as in Madison (IIRC) that parchment barriers are insufficient to prevent rights from being infringed. Though to be perfectly honest Madison did change his tune later on into support the Bill of Rights, but it wasn't because he felt they of themselves protected rights, it was IIRC more of trying to start a culture where those rights would be respected by their inclusion in the document. Which if you think about it, worked fairly decently, America's cultural attachment to the concept, for example, of Freedom of Speech is probably the most effect protection possible.

What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.

a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Dravin

[MorningStar]

The emoticon about covers my feelings on this.

[Blackmarch]

hmm wonder if targeting only the rich could be counted as inethical/criminal discrimination?