The Pending Doom of Obamacare

[Dravin]

Dash, I'm not asking about efficiency. You very strongly imply that the only way to be responsible/Christian for the poor is through government programs, which is very much false. The Church gives a substantial amount of aid privately, is the Church unchristian because it does not give those resources and funds (though sometimes it does of its own volition) to the government to redistribute?

Edited February 4, 2011 by Dravin

[Saldrin]

Sali:

In regard to your last post, when people do not have insurance in the United States (the Christain nation) and get sick, the collective will is to literally have them suffer and die because more profit can be gained this way rather than help.

That is not true, in the US it is LAW that anyone going into an emergency room seeking treatment MUST BE TREATED. further more hospitals are required to give out so much in care in charity ( people with no insurance) and further more private largess groups also help to give out charity care. Socialist redistributive models do not work, they suppress innovation and economic growth as well as the aforementioned largess charity groups. Socialist redistributive models also lead to health care rationing under the guise of helping the greater good.

[Just_A_Guy]

The link below is an extensive study that systematically reviewed 38 studies in a comparison manner between Canada and the United States. The universal care system in Canada (what Republications call the socialist system) was equal to American health care and in some cases, quite superior. The difference is no one is denied in Canada. See the link below.

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array

Did you actually read your own source?

Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

If anyone is paying attention we just had the government bailout numerous private market agencies because of poor decisions and the greedy personalities that come when millions of dollars are on the line. Government saved free market!

I'm always amused at how people point to the natural consequences of socialism and try to paint it as capitalism gone amok.

If GM had failed, we'd see expansion by more able companies like Toyota or Honda as well as start-ups that would be able to buy GM's equipment and make contracts with its suppliers for bargain rates.

It was not "the market" that failed; it was specific companies that had made stupid decisions. Bailouts only mean that the next round of investors will be even more reckless, believing that the government will again shield them from the effects of their own bad behavior. Government didn't "save" anything; it just kicked the can down the road and guaranteed that the next crash will be even worse.

The study above clearly outlines that government run health care is equal or better than the United States and it denies no one and is cheaper because Canadian health care does not have to pay million on advertising to compete with other organizations. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, past editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, drug companies pay about 50% of their overall budget on advertisement. If they stopped competing, drugs would cost about 50% less than they do now.

If they don't advertise as much, they don't sell as much volume and they have to raise prices to take home the same amount of revenue. This is high school stuff.

Now, you can eradicate patents if you like. That will bring costs down. Of course, it also tells innovators: "If you come out with an idea that is really brilliant and capable of vastly improving the human condition, we will force you to give it to us for free."

But maybe all the great medical discoveries that will ever be made, have already been made. So to heck with those scum-sucking pharmaceuticals and their inflated R&D budgets.

Third, I have a personal value that health care should be given to all people – I think it’s the Christ-like thing to do. Would the Savior deny cancer treatment to someone who had a smoking addiction and send them off to die? Should we pass off our public and social responsibility for mega for-profit corporations?

Who cares? Either way, we're apparently not stepping up to handle them ourselves. The difference, then, is that I want charities to do it voluntarily and you want me to do it at the point of a gun.

But making a profit on someone dying – denying treatment to make millions of dollars – does not sound like something the Savior would support, so I do not either.

Elder Nelson was a world-renowned heart surgeon who treated dying people every day, and did so for personal profit. Maybe you should write him and tell him how un-Christian he was.

. . . I have no problems paying higher taxes so that that people who suffer have remedy – even if that person suffering brought on the illness themselves.

Apparently, you also have no problem forcing other people to pay higher taxes so that you can go to bed secure in the knowledge that the entire country is subjecting itself to your own religious mores.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

So what happens if you hit hard times and your husband can no longer take care of you. What if you are not able to work, hit a recession like now, husband loses his job and health insurance and you spend all of your savings supporting yourself during this time, what will you do if you get sick and need to see a doctor? It's a reality that can happen to anyone, no matter how well they have prepared. And that is why I think the principle looks great on paper, but in reality lets a certain bracket of people down, (American Citizens included).

I'm Filipino. In the Philippines, there's no law that tells hospitals they have to treat patients.

My brother is a neurologist. His wife is a pediatrician with specialty in special needs (autism, celebral palsy, down syndrome, etc.). I have an uncle who is a general surgeon, and some other uncles/aunts who are doctors and dentists , we have several physical therapists, and half of the rest are nurses including my sister. My mother was a midwife. My uncle and some cousins are lawyers - some of which are mayors/congressmen. My dad, other uncles, other brother as well as myself are engineers and we have a smattering of teachers/principals in the family and some other stuff all over the spectrum.

Filipinos don't worry about "what if my house burns down, all my posessions stolen, somebody shoots my cat, and I get cancer." Actually - all those has happened to my parents already... including the cat. My mother is a member of the mastectomy club. We don't worry because we have done what we can to be prepared and we have family to turn to - "you must be Filipino if... you have close cousins that you have to use 3 legal-size papers to find the common ancestor". Right now, my brother is building a house, my uncle is battling cancer, and another uncle is losing his house in Nevada... yep, tons of family members out there helping them with it. It is good for family bonding.

For those Filipinos who have used up their resources and don't have the big clan like we do - they usually get help from the Catholic Church, even if they are not Catholics. Or they get help from the myriad of charitable organizations in the Philippines - like Tim Tebow's group.

If... after all this, it's still not enough... that's when I tell God - I did everything I can do, the rest is up to You.

Edited February 5, 2011 by anatess

[Guest]

As far as being designed so that people migrating to the States will not bring down the system, well instead of the Government taking the costs of this, the hospitals suffer. As many immigrants and citizens alike use the ER for small complaints, because they can't afford a doctor and walk away leaving others hospital, doctor and insurance bills to rocket to cover the costs of them not paying.

So... you're saying... instead of fixing the problem, let's move the responsibility to another set of people... doesn't make sense.

Because... everytime you say THE GOVERNMENT, it's not some foreign entity out there having unlimited money to spend, you're actually saying, YOU AND ME... or at least those who are in the bracket that pays taxes. Eventually, you are going to burden the taxpayers enough so that there is more incentive for people to lose their jobs and get on the entitlement wagon instead of trying to be productive and getting no value for the productivity. So that, eventually, you will end up with a voting majority of entitlement seekers that can just vote themselves more entitlements... (actually, we're almost to that point - and no, I don't have the official stats on that).

[prophetofdoom]

Obamacare is 100% certifiably unconstitutional. I knew it from the day it was passed. You can't "force" people to buy private health insurance when they were not in the market to begin with. What people don't acknowledge is this.. the Obamacare system was actually written by the insurance companies to raise profit.. how?

By requiring people to buy health insurance that were not in the market, the insurance industry increases their market by using the government (force). When Obamacare was passed, the stocks for all the health insurance companies skyrocketed.. they didn't go down.. because they knew they would be able to increase profits.

I think a lot of people like to oversimplify things to socialism vs. capitalism. When the system doesn't really work like that. Big corporations, banks, and other entities like to use government regulations and laws to grant them the competitive advantage. The US system is not capitalism but "crony capitalism" is what is a better description.

[Guest]

Obamacare is 100% certifiably unconstitutional. I knew it from the day it was passed. You can't "force" people to buy private health insurance when they were not in the market to begin with. What people don't acknowledge is this.. the Obamacare system was actually written by the insurance companies to raise profit.. how?

By requiring people to buy health insurance that were not in the market, the insurance industry increases their market by using the government (force). When Obamacare was passed, the stocks for all the health insurance companies skyrocketed.. they didn't go down.. because they knew they would be able to increase profits.

I think a lot of people like to oversimplify things to socialism vs. capitalism. When the system doesn't really work like that. Big corporations, banks, and other entities like to use government regulations and laws to grant them the competitive advantage. The US system is not capitalism but "crony capitalism" is what is a better description.

Prophet... I'm gonna have to ask for a source on that. I don't think this is true. My brother and his wife work for a health insurance company. They both are worried for their jobs. When you got a system that "requires" coverage for pre-existing conditions with a "mandated" premium... it's scary for any insurance business. And that's just one of the problems.

Edited February 5, 2011 by anatess

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Prophet... I'm gonna have to ask for a source on that. I don't think this is true. My brother and his wife work for a health insurance company. They both are worried for their jobs. When you got a system that "requires" coverage for pre-existing conditions with a "mandated" premium... it's scary for any insurance business. And that's just one of the problems.

Prophet is only partially correct. While at first, Obamacare may seem like a windfall for insurance companies, this is more than offset by even more obtuse government regulations that force certain coverages and don't allow insurance companies to drop coverage or deny coverage for preexisting conditions. Imagine if you started a business and the government told you that you had to provide certain services by law and once someone became a customer, you could never stop doing business with that customer. The few items already being implemented have caused rates to spike already. To add to the problem, people aren't going to simply pay the higher rates, because in general, people don't have more money to meet these rising costs; so they reduce their plan and their coverage to fit within their budget.

There are many on the right commenting on how beneficial Obamacare will be for the insurance industry, but they're not considering the net effect that will reduce profitability by driving markets overseas and considering alternatives to shouldering the rocketing costs of health care. Your relatives are right to fear for their jobs as their employers scramble for ways to reduce costs. Everyone loses with Obamacare.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Actually Anatess spoke explicitly about rendering aid just not through the government. I'm getting a sense, but want to be perfectly clear, but you seem to imply that only through the advent of government redistribution of resources can social good come about. Which ignores that private redistribution can and does happen (look at the Church).

I can understand arguments about practicality but the position, "I'd rather give you $200 then give the government $200 dollars to then give to you (presumably with some used for administration costs)", doesn't fall under the rubric of un-Christlike.

There's a prevailing mindset that we ought to look to government to solve all our problems. We want assurances because we've forgotten how to trust in God and look to God for provision. Instead of following the teachings of Christ by caring for the poor on a personal basis, we created government agencies to do our charity for us; a wall of separation between the giver and the recipient so we didn't have to see, touch or smell the afflicted. Much of the Church has abdigated their responsibility to care for the poor, even among their own congregation. Those looking to their church for support are now told to exhaust all other options, including public assistance. In saying this, of course I exclude the LDS church whose Relief Society is a model of charity that finds no equal.

In trying to find religious vindication for the socialization of charity, leftists will attempt to cite the teachings of Christ to buttress their arguments for ever increasing government entitlement programs. Having seen the multi-generational misery, indignity, and perpetuation of poverty resulting from welfare programs, housing projects, and other subsidies, I have to wonder how anyone can see this as ordained from heaven. The War on Poverty has only resulted in greater poverty. Contrast this with real charity that actually helps people, is less wasteful, and lends itself to people regaining self sufficiency.

[talisyn]

Well, I have yet to see someone cite the words of Christ when talking about the not-socialization of health care

[Saldrin]

Well, I have yet to see someone cite the words of Christ when talking about the not-socialization of health care

Christ never talked about socialized medical, we are supposed to individually take care of those around us not give the responsibly to a corrupt government bureau.

[talisyn]

Christ never talked about socialized medical, we are supposed to individually take care of those around us not give the responsibly to a corrupt government bureau.

When did He say that?

[Just_A_Guy]

If Mary had sold her ointment instead of using it to anoint Jesus, and then retained a doctor with the proceeds--how many poor people could have been healed?

As a general principle, then, we know that there are some things more important than mandatory universal health care. Which things those are specifically, is a matter of political and not theological discourse. But some of us would submit that a few things that are more important would include:

1) Cost regulation (through a bona-fide competitive process);

2) Continued improvement of health care processes (fostered by incentivizing innovation with the promise of pecuniary gain);

3) Freedom from tyranny (by not giving government a tool through which it gets to choose who lives and who dies, and which sooner or later will be turned against government's ideological opponents);

4) Individual freedom to obtain health care from non-government-controlled sources, if government decides it cannot or will not provide a particular service to a particular patient (available under the current incarnation of ObamaCare, but often not in the single-payer system which the President has admitted he ultimately wants to see the country adopt).

5) Freedom to make individual decisions to deploy one's economic resources as efficiently as possible for the good of one's family (which might entail going without insurance or using an HSA or bare-bones catastrophic plan at some point in one's life).

Edited February 6, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[prophetofdoom]

Prophet is only partially correct. While at first, Obamacare may seem like a windfall for insurance companies, this is more than offset by even more obtuse government regulations that force certain coverages and don't allow insurance companies to drop coverage or deny coverage for preexisting conditions. Imagine if you started a business and the government told you that you had to provide certain services by law and once someone became a customer, you could never stop doing business with that customer. The few items already being implemented have caused rates to spike already. To add to the problem, people aren't going to simply pay the higher rates, because in general, people don't have more money to meet these rising costs; so they reduce their plan and their coverage to fit within their budget.

There are many on the right commenting on how beneficial Obamacare will be for the insurance industry, but they're not considering the net effect that will reduce profitability by driving markets overseas and considering alternatives to shouldering the rocketing costs of health care. Your relatives are right to fear for their jobs as their employers scramble for ways to reduce costs. Everyone loses with Obamacare.

Obamacare, in my opinion, will still be profitable to the insurance companies. Although they are required to cover people with pre-existing conditions... they will simply charge everyone more to make up for the difference in covering those pre-existing conditions. Also, the government will be subsidizing people who cannot afford insurance.. giving the insurance companies some more market share with government backing. With all the lobbying that goes on in Washington, there is no way the Health Insurance industry is going to get the raw end of the stick.

As for myself, I am currently covered under my employers health plan. Therefore Obamacare will raise my insurance rates (even though I am already covered) and most likely I will receive worse health care because of all the new people added to the system (without the infrastructure to support it). Then, the government will be slapping on some extra taxes on my payroll check.. so most middle class people will be getting a bad deal in this situation. It will not help the economy at all.

[musicislife]

i dont disagree with "obamacare" since it is HELPING people. it is not socialist or any crap that people may think, and even if it was: what's the law of consecration!? just saying. but anyway, i have no problem with the healthcare bill and have no idea why you dislike it. do explain.

[Saldrin]

i dont disagree with "obamacare" since it is HELPING people. it is not socialist or any crap that people may think, and even if it was: what's the law of consecration!? just saying. but anyway, i have no problem with the healthcare bill and have no idea why you dislike it. do explain.

it doesn't help people it hurts people by hurting the economy costing them their jobs and will result in death panels and health care rationing. it takes away our individual freedoms. explain how the government has the the right to tell me i will buy a product, and when someone should be denied care just because of old age. think about the doctors they are going to be told who they can treat and where they can practiced how is that freedom? and explain how its not socialism?

[Just_A_Guy]

it is not socialist or any crap that people may think, and even if it was: what's the law of consecration!?

Voluntary.

[prophetofdoom]

i dont disagree with "obamacare" since it is HELPING people. it is not socialist or any crap that people may think, and even if it was: what's the law of consecration!? just saying. but anyway, i have no problem with the healthcare bill and have no idea why you dislike it. do explain.

Even if Obamacare helped poor people... it still would be morally questionable. Is it right for the government, which represents force, to confiscate someones property to give it to another? My belief is that charity is best left to private citizens, churches, and private organizations.. because it gives people the opportunity to give with sincerity.

We also have the moral dilemma of government using Obamacare to fund abortions and encourage "end of life" counseling for Seniors... which is best left to individuals, churches, and families... not government.

[prophetofdoom]

Voluntary.

Agreed. The Law of Consecration is completely different then socialism. Under the Law of Consecration, there will be a righteous people put under covenant and directed by the Lord. It will be a perfect system of equity. Also, there is still private ownership in the Law of Consecration with every family given a stewardship.

[talisyn]

But that stewardship can be taken away.

The closest thing I can see about this topic in the Bible is the good Samaritan story, of course. I guess it's up to every individual whether they are the good Samaritan or the inn keeper

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm inclined to disagree with you somewhat, Talisyn. D&C 51:5 is clear that you keep your stewardship even if you leave the Church.

But I agree with the rest of your post.

[prophetofdoom]

I'm inclined to disagree with you somewhat, Talisyn. D&C 51:5 is clear that you keep your stewardship even if you leave the Church.

But I agree with the rest of your post.

From my understanding, you are correct. People are given deeds under the Law of Consecration and can even leave the order if they choose to. The catch is this... if you leave the order, you would be breaking your covenants.

[Dravin]

it is not socialist

Arguably it is. Of course (by the same argument) so are police departments. Generally folks debate over how much socialism is acceptable (baring hard core libertarians).

[FunkyTown]

Hiya, JAG -

Just a couple of points: You're right - The bailouts were not indicative of a free market. They were indicative of socialist ideals, and rather stupid ones at that. Bailing out companies that make poor decisions when they do make poor decisions, but letting them keep profits when they don't, means that stupid decisions will continue to be made by the company.

However:

1) If the quote you gave says that there didn't appear to be much difference between Canadian and American health care, arguing that publicly funded health care will result in worse service seems to be a bit of a red herring.

2) Research doesn't stop because the government puts funding towards things. In the UK with the NHS, medical research is showing some exciting strides. In particular, the ability to regrow organs ruined by disease. If this doesn't excite you about the medical system, then I don't know what will. New heart when you're old with no rejection? Yes, please.

Gene find will help us to regrow limbs | UK news | The Observer

(NOTE: This is pie-in-the-sky, for certain, since we can't guarantee the same things that work with mice will work with humans. The NHS has, however, slated 2015 as being when human testing will begin with this, which is super-exciting).

This is and will be developed in the UK - A health system pushed as 'Socialist' by those who are looking to demonize it. If those radical advances are being developed, what else could come of it?

With that in mind, the main arguments against socialized medicine that you hear - It stifles development and is worse service-wise to a free-market health care - Seem to fall apart. Has anyone ever done a study to see how much more privately funded research clinics have developed medicine than publicly funded research clinics?

I'm cautious about weighing in on this particular matter without having the numbers in front of me from the opposing side.

Did you actually read your own source?

I'm always amused at how people point to the natural consequences of socialism and try to paint it as capitalism gone amok.

If GM had failed, we'd see expansion by more able companies like Toyota or Honda as well as start-ups that would be able to buy GM's equipment and make contracts with its suppliers for bargain rates.

It was not "the market" that failed; it was specific companies that had made stupid decisions. Bailouts only mean that the next round of investors will be even more reckless, believing that the government will again shield them from the effects of their own bad behavior. Government didn't "save" anything; it just kicked the can down the road and guaranteed that the next crash will be even worse.

If they don't advertise as much, they don't sell as much volume and they have to raise prices to take home the same amount of revenue. This is high school stuff.

Now, you can eradicate patents if you like. That will bring costs down. Of course, it also tells innovators: "If you come out with an idea that is really brilliant and capable of vastly improving the human condition, we will force you to give it to us for free."

But maybe all the great medical discoveries that will ever be made, have already been made. So to heck with those scum-sucking pharmaceuticals and their inflated R&D budgets.

Who cares? Either way, we're apparently not stepping up to handle them ourselves. The difference, then, is that I want charities to do it voluntarily and you want me to do it at the point of a gun.

Elder Nelson was a world-renowned heart surgeon who treated dying people every day, and did so for personal profit. Maybe you should write him and tell him how un-Christian he was.

Apparently, you also have no problem forcing other people to pay higher taxes so that you can go to bed secure in the knowledge that the entire country is subjecting itself to your own religious mores.

[dash77]

I think what happens in discussion such as these is that people have uneducated predetermined thoughts that they simply follow in a docile manner and then go to easy and non-education sources to support their views. At one time I thought American health care was the best in the world because I simply followed what I was told like a docile being, but as I because educated in the process (I hold a Ph.D. in a health area and work with all sorts of health experts, including medical doctors) I have changed my position because of objective research – not on fact sheets from the Kaiser foundation or referencing Wikipedia.

Let me give two examples of people who have uneducated predetermined thoughts. First, Saldrin disagrees with me that in the United States people who do not have health insurance die (see post # 52). Please see the link below regarding what the Institute of Medicine’s research outlines -- 18,000 unnecessary deaths are attributed to lack of insurance.

Institute of Medicine Calls for Universal Health Insurance by 2010

When I lived in Salt Lake City (some 20 years ago) I worked with a friend who had cancer and his insurance would not cover a bone-marrow transplant, even though such a treatment would have increased his possibility to live in a significant manner. I was in charge of some of the fundraising efforts. The end story is we could not raise enough funds, and he died. I am sure the stress of the fundraisering, coupled with him and his wife and two children’s decision to try to even sell their homes for enough money for the treatment, added even greater stress to him and his family.

I think people like Saldrin like to cling onto uneducated myths so that they can protect themselves -- by thinking something is untrue, when it is true, they can then protect themselves from the truth that there individual ideologies actual causes people to die. Simply stated, those people who argue for a free market profit oriented health care system and vote this way actual contribute and are responsibility for the deaths of others. American’s are really good at pointing the finger of personal responsibility on everyone but their own self’s. The United States is the ONLY developed country that does not provide universal health care and the only country that makes a profit off of death and illness. My friend that died years ago was denied a bone marrow transplant due to finical reasons – it was not profitable to the insurance company that made missions of dollars that year. And how such people can rectify that they are good Christians and support a profit driven medical system that clearly puts profit before saving lives is by believing in uneducated truths. I think that is why the phrases that ignorance is bliss is true.

For the record, I have no problems with free market and profit driven when death is not lying in the balance. I have no problems, for example, with a free market profit driven mentality when selling and buying cars (the auto-industry). But I think government needs to be the delivery system of health care to stop the profit mentality, which ideology clearly contributes to death and suffering. And the Canadian example illustrates that a government system can do this in most cases better than the United States (and the link I provided in post # 37 is not some simply stat sheet from a foundation, it is objective research in a non-partisan academic journal that has a rigorous blind review process – they reason foundation research often does not appear in real academic journals is because its not rigorous enough or is too flawed to be published). A profit driven mentality in health care, as opposed to other industries, is bad and completely un-Christian is because death and suffering lie in the balance, it’s not like purchasing other goods, like a car, or computer.

Here is my second example of uneducated predetermined thoughts. Just-a-guy has taken a very small section of the article I provided and has completely mininsterpeted it (see post # 53). Anyone that knows anything about research knows that the abstract summaries the key findings and below is the abstract form the article, note the final interpretation. Government health care in Canada is a little better than American health care. It’s a better system that has a little better health care outcomes that makes no profit off of other people and covers EVERYONE – no one dies when they do not have health insurance. No one has to mortgage there homes to survive and it’s more effective system!!!

"Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."