Opponents of universal health care in the US

Guess I Dont Belong Here wrote:

PST wrote:

Guest wrote:For those "American Citizens" who legitimately can not get healthcare, I'm sure a solution other than total government takeover of healthcare can be found. However the government wants to cover "anybody here" and for procedures most of us do not want "our money" to pay for. Not saying I'm radical pro life, but I could not in good conscience allow my money to be used for abortions and I should not be made to contribute to fund them. IMHO Government can't pull it off... No Way.

The bills passed in the Senate and the House both prohibit the use of any funds either to cover illegal aliens or to pay for abortion (except in case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother). For illegal aliens, that is in section 1312(f)(3) of the Senate bill and section 347 of the House bill. The abortion provisions are section 1303 of the Senate bill, which substantially follows the longstanding Hyde amendments to Medicaid, and section 265 of the House bill, the Stupak amendment, which has been highly lauded by pro-life advocates for extra measures to prevent any commingling of federal funds with any other funds that could pay for abortion. I'm not crazy about these myself, but they are in the bills in order to satisfy those who insisted on them. Therefore concerns that the government will cover "anybody here" or use taxpayer money to pay for abortions have been answered and should not be a reason for opposing either bill.

PST.. I'll just say to you. You better actually read the bill yourself because yes there is the language you state, but, there is doubletalk elsewhere that allows both. Don't trust me... don't trust MSNBC... don't trust anybody. READ AND STUDY the bill. If you do you will have done more than most of our elected officials have done. That is for sure.

I've read a great deal more of the bills as a resulting of the stimulating discussions here than I had before. In addition, thanks to the miracle of computers, it's far easier to pick out everything on a particular subject than it used to be. It is, of course, difficult to prove a negative, but I have looked hard and can't find doubletalk that takes away what has been given on either of these issues. I've stuck my neck out and identified the sections that I think prohibit funding of illegal aliens or abortions. I do this for a living, so I'll be embarrassed if someone else finds such language. As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in the other court if someone still thinks otherwise.

Here is one additional bit of evidence. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supported the Stupak amendment. You can read the bishops' letter to the House at http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/USCCB-l ... lfinal.pdf. Those are smart guys, and they have a couple of dozen catholic university law schools and the Jesuits backing them up. If the House somehow slipped language into the bill negating Stupak, they would have noticed.

There is a good quotation from that letter on another topic that has been covered in this thread. I don't actually think of health care as a right the way some other supporters of the bill do, but the bishops seem to regard it as one. They conclude:

For the Catholic Church, health care is a basic human right and providing health care is an essential ministry. We pick up the pieces of this failing system in our emergency rooms, clinics, parishes and communities. This is why we strongly support Congressional action on health care reform which protects human life and dignity and serves the poor and vulnerable as a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.

I hope no one comes back with the proverb about the devil quoting scripture for his own purposes. It does look to me, though, like the Church views the bill as morally desirable, as long as the abortion objection is overcome, and it is satisfied that Stupak does this.

Stupak Amendment is part of the house bill. Abortion is allowed under the Senate version and I believe if I'm not mistaken, the bishops and a whole bunch of christian leaders are up in arms about it and I believe some Bishops are refusing communion to some supporting Democrats. I am starting to notice that people use the Stupak Amendment in their arguments and ignore the Senate version on the subject. I do hope your exclusion was merely oversight because there is little debate,even by democrats, that the language exists in the Senate bill.

Autopapdude wrote:

I agree with GIDBH that autocpapdude's approach is not a good one to imitate. I assume that the observation that it should have been "nipped quickly" did not mean that someone should have deleted it.

PST, my approach is based on an honest opinion.

It really doesn't matter what your approach is based on. Your approach does not grant anyone a license to open a thread calling for rational debate---only to insult people and their beliefs with foul adjectives.

I'm always amazed when self-proclaimed humanists visibly treat their fellow humans poorly.

Guess I Dont Belong Here wrote:Stupak Amendment is part of the house bill. Abortion is allowed under the Senate version and I believe if I'm not mistaken, the bishops and a whole bunch of christian leaders are up in arms about it and I believe some Bishops are refusing communion to some supporting Democrats. I am starting to notice that people use the Stupak Amendment in their arguments and ignore the Senate version on the subject. I do hope your exclusion was merely oversight because there is little debate,even by democrats, that the language exists in the Senate bill.

I did not exclude the Senate version from my discussion, either deliberately or by oversight, and I don't know how you could suggest I did. Here is what I said:

The abortion provisions are section 1303 of the Senate bill, which substantially follows the longstanding Hyde amendments to Medicaid, and section 265 of the House bill, the Stupak amendment, which has been highly lauded by pro-life advocates for extra measures to prevent any commingling of federal funds with any other funds that could pay for abortion.

Under the House bill, with the Stupak amendment, federal subsidies for low-income subscribers cannot be used for abortions or for an insurance plan that covers abortion. Under the Senate bill, such subsidies cannot be used for abortions, but they can be used to help pay for an insurance plan that covers abortions, as long as the plan only uses subscriber premiums for abortions, and keeps that money separate from the federal subsidies, which must not be so used. As I said, pro-life advocates like the Stupak amendment better. I think that the House bill answers your objection that in good conscience you could not allow your money to be used for abortions. The bishops and others think that this is, however, an indirect subsidy, since making the plan as a whole less expensive frees subscriber premium money to be used for abortion. One camp thinks that Stupak goes further than the current Hyde amendment, the other thinks the Senate version falls short of the Hyde language. There is disagreement, but the whole battle is being fought within the territory of how far to go to make sure no federal money supports abortions even indirectly. No version actual allows it to be used that way, although there are commentators who claim otherwise. There are other differences between the bills, but that is the key issue, and there is a limit to the amount of detail it is practical to discuss in a CPAP forum. I predict Stupak will prevail.

I have not seen any news stories about bishops denying communion to Senators because they support the healthcare bill. For what it's worth, the letter from the USCCB criticizing the Senate bill had three criticisms: (1) no Stupak amendment, (2) unfair to immigrants, legal and illegal, and (3) less generous to the poor than the House version.

Every time Government gives you something there are 'strings' attached. In the case of the health care bill, it is new and higher taxes, micromanagement of our health care, micromanagement of insurance, unworkable limits on treatment, rationing of health care, and other things. IMHO, and the opinions of others, giving up the right of being able to work with your doctor without government intervention is unthinkable.

I wish I had time to read 2,000 pages of legislation. I would love to see what the bill REALLY says. All I know is there is a massive power grab in the works here, a power grab many people will regret when they start getting their 'free' health care. Most people would rather not have to pay for health care. But they would much rather not have Government meddling with the very thing that may be sustaining their life.

I will admit I am a little unusual in that my world revolves around the animals I love and care for. If I do anything to improve my health, it is essentially for the lions. Lions especially, and many other animals need champions to protect their ability to exist right now. So at time, it may come across that I am not sensitive to human need. And that may be partly true in that I do not share my life with any other people, except as casual friends or coworkers. I am completely at peace when surrounded by 500 pound cats. But despite this, I cringe every time I read about people who are denied health care for arbitrary and capricious reasons. Systemizing our borken system through a huge bureauaracy is NOT the answer. Ridding the system of fundamental greed, like $58 filters and $2,400 basic CPAP machines is what is really needed. It is a great thing to make a prifit, even a tidy profit. But what we all see in our health care system toiday in the way of profits is obscene. A $1 billion bonus for a company that won't help people because of a dispute with a hospital is beyond criminal. Think how many people that $1 billion could have helped.

If we purged the system of rampant greed (perhaps in part by executing a few of these grossly greedy CEOs), and provided opportunities for REAL, MEANINGFUL COMPETITIIION (including the right of people to treat their own condition, if so desired), we could clear up a substantial fraction of the problems in our current system.

And it may indeed take some legislation to protect people from things like preexisting conditions. But if other parts of the system were fixed, this would be of considerably less consequences.

Oh, and I turned down a free CPAP machine available through my insurance because I did not want to go through all the DME crap people have talked about here, and end up with a machine that is hardly more sophisticated than a muffin fan with a hose attached. And although I have a good paying job (and above average insurance), it has been a bit of a struggle to get this machine payed for. But I am convinced that I have made the right decision. And should I eventually have to get a really expensive machine, like an adaptive servo ventilator (and I very well may), you can bet I will pay for it out of pocket as well, even if this means selling some 'toys'.

I can't believe I actually chose to end a nice day by clicking on this thread. But I did. Honestly, I don't know which is best for our country. Don't have the brainpower to wade thru 200 pages of politicospeak, much less 2000. But from what I have read, there's aspects of the new plan I'm comfortable with, others, not so much.

This whole discussion reminds me of a recent conversation when I asked my daughter which of her vehicles I should use to go to my doctor's appointment. She said to take my choice between the van that won't hold power steering fluid or the car that chugalugs uphill. What a choice! If their plans include a route with hills, they take the van and keep pouring in fluid. If their destination requires tight parking, they take the car and the flatest route possible even if it's longer. It's picking the preference of two flawed vehicles.

People have their reasons for their preferences, for what will work best for their situation and sensitivities. Far be it from me to think I have a monopoly on right - just know what's right in my eyes. And I've just deleted everything I had written about the new vs old plans because it was just one more opinion. What I do want to say is that requiring accountability with existing healthcare dollars would free up some funds to meet more needs. If that were done first, I think there would be less resistance if there was a true need for more. Yes, it has everything to do with money. About using it wisely so that it can go farther. When did good stewardship become a bad thing? Sure, there are plenty of self centered people who wouldn't cross the road to pee on someone on fire. But not wanting even more of ones hard earned money spent on padding pockets somewhere up the line is not the identifier. Too far of a jump for even this bleeding heart.

The FCC wanted more accountability from broadcasters on how they served the public interest. So, they devised an entirely new way fo how broadcasters have to indicate how programming they provide address significant public issues. The new report is so complicated that we came close to having to hire another person just to do the additional paperwork. Broadcasters put pressure on the FCC, and they have backed down a bit-- for now.

Will 'accountability' really help? Or, will it just result in a huge new morass of paperwork for health care providers, with the attendant costs of filling it out? Meanwhile, those getting filthy rich off the system will simply find loopholes.

PST wrote:

Guess I Dont Belong Here wrote:Stupak Amendment is part of the house bill. Abortion is allowed under the Senate version and I believe if I'm not mistaken, the bishops and a whole bunch of christian leaders are up in arms about it and I believe some Bishops are refusing communion to some supporting Democrats. I am starting to notice that people use the Stupak Amendment in their arguments and ignore the Senate version on the subject. I do hope your exclusion was merely oversight because there is little debate,even by democrats, that the language exists in the Senate bill.

I did not exclude the Senate version from my discussion, either deliberately or by oversight, and I don't know how you could suggest I did. Here is what I said:

The abortion provisions are section 1303 of the Senate bill, which substantially follows the longstanding Hyde amendments to Medicaid, and section 265 of the House bill, the Stupak amendment, which has been highly lauded by pro-life advocates for extra measures to prevent any commingling of federal funds with any other funds that could pay for abortion.

Under the House bill, with the Stupak amendment, federal subsidies for low-income subscribers cannot be used for abortions or for an insurance plan that covers abortion. Under the Senate bill, such subsidies cannot be used for abortions, but they can be used to help pay for an insurance plan that covers abortions, as long as the plan only uses subscriber premiums for abortions, and keeps that money separate from the federal subsidies, which must not be so used. As I said, pro-life advocates like the Stupak amendment better. I think that the House bill answers your objection that in good conscience you could not allow your money to be used for abortions. The bishops and others think that this is, however, an indirect subsidy, since making the plan as a whole less expensive frees subscriber premium money to be used for abortion. One camp thinks that Stupak goes further than the current Hyde amendment, the other thinks the Senate version falls short of the Hyde language. There is disagreement, but the whole battle is being fought within the territory of how far to go to make sure no federal money supports abortions even indirectly. No version actual allows it to be used that way, although there are commentators who claim otherwise. There are other differences between the bills, but that is the key issue, and there is a limit to the amount of detail it is practical to discuss in a CPAP forum. I predict Stupak will prevail.

I have not seen any news stories about bishops denying communion to Senators because they support the healthcare bill. For what it's worth, the letter from the USCCB criticizing the Senate bill had three criticisms: (1) no Stupak amendment, (2) unfair to immigrants, legal and illegal, and (3) less generous to the poor than the House version.

Google communion congress. That should get you up to speed. However the most notable instance is the action against Congressman Kennedy for not supporting explicit bans on funding for abortion in their bill.

Accountability is not going to help.

Let's strip this to the essentials for clarity and not quote the whole thread:

Guess I Dont Belong Here wrote:Stupak Amendment is part of the house bill. Abortion is allowed under the Senate version and I believe if I'm not mistaken, the bishops and a whole bunch of christian leaders are up in arms about it and I believe some Bishops are refusing communion to some supporting Democrats. I am starting to notice that people use the Stupak Amendment in their arguments and ignore the Senate version on the subject. I do hope your exclusion was merely oversight because there is little debate,even by democrats, that the language exists in the Senate bill.

PST wrote: I have not seen any news stories about bishops denying communion to Senators because they support the healthcare bill.

Guess I Dont Belong Here wrote:Google communion congress. That should get you up to speed. However the most notable instance is the action against Congressman Kennedy for not supporting explicit bans on funding for abortion in their bill.

There was a reason I said senator. Kennedy is a representative. Your point was that the bishops are withholding communion because the Senate bill lacks the stronger anti-abortion language of the House's Stupak amendment. Kennedy is evidence against your assertion. Show me a senator (and not something from the past over another bill).

kteague wrote: Yes, it has everything to do with money. About using it wisely so that it can go farther.

kteague, you have hit the nail on the head for me. I previously stated that it was indeed about money. With 34 yrs. of working for the government, federal and state, I am hard pressed to find any time where the government, federal and state, was/is a good steward of money. Hence I do not want to give them anymore than absolutely necessary. I readily admit that our health care system is broken and will say again we do not need a 2000 page bill to fix it.

One of the things I muse, sorry muse.inc, about most is why our founding fathers left their homeland and traveled to an unknown land to start anew.

bcx16

JohnBFisher wrote: Have you ever priced insurance if you have a chronic condition? You are joking, right? No, seriously. You MUST be joking.

I have Type 2 Diabetes and Sporadic OPCA. I would be lucky if I could find an insurance company that would underwrite me, let alone price it so I could ever afford it.

I don't recall discussing the cost. It's a fact of life that a chronic condition will cost more to treat. Do you expect an insurance company to charge you the same as a healthy policy-holder? Now who's joking?

I can understand why you'd want all taxpayers to share YOUR burden, tho. Although we're well on our to a Socialist utopia, we're not there yet.

My thought on accountability was more about adding transparency than adding bureaucracy. Information about government spending shouldn't be so obscure that the threat of waste exposure is miniscule. Can't tell you what that would look like. Far too complex to solve on a message board.

bearcatx16 wrote: One of the things I muse, sorry muse.inc, about most is why our founding fathers left their homeland and traveled to an unknown land to start anew.

Well, please correct me if I'm wrong. But I was under the impression that some left primarily for opportunity while others fled what they perceived as oppressive unfairness in either government or society.

Our founding fathers, in turn, eventually created a constitution hoping to keep governmental and societal oppressive unfairness at bay. Right around that time, healthcare leaned rather heavily on flasks of alcohol, trusty bowie blades, and barber shop chairs. But I don't recall our founding fathers ever having expressed any sentiments whatsoever, that corrupt freedoms of economic opportunities (those very same corrupt freedoms that rampantly broke U.S. healthcare) should somehow prevail over freedoms from institutional oppressions.

I muse at the notion that our founding fathers would somehow approve of today's rampant economic corruption in healthcare and prefer to leave that broken system in place. But I also muse at the insinuation that any of our fairness oriented founding fathers would point to contemporary American healthcare as if it were a successful example of American economic freedoms warranting a governmental hands-off approach.

Autopapdude wrote:

ecause my very conservative views

Cut the crap. Very conservative views= don't want to spend tax dollars helping anyone else.

You've stepped over the line there. Any remnants of your credibility just evaporated.