Healthcare law sounds good, but…
Posted on March 23rd, 2010 by Robert O'Hara
So there it is, folks! There will be last ditch efforts from republicans and state attorney generals to nullify the law, but the healthcare overhaul in America is now in motion. My main criticism of the bill was that we might be throwing money at the problem. No one read the bill. No one understood it. And there didn’t seem to be any distinguishable solutions.
But now that it is law, there seems to be more details. And I like what I hear. There are a lot of essential provisions without too much government control. However, there are still a few loose ends. First, more people will be covered, but will more people treated? There is a difference. Second, we cannot afford this. Doesn’t that mean anything anymore? It makes you think…
Latest posts by Robert O'Hara (Posts)
- The dawn of Syrian conflict - August 29, 2013
- Of Russian resets and NSA leaks - August 12, 2013
- Too much news is good news for Mullah Omar - July 25, 2013
- Trayvon Martin, tragedy and injustice - July 14, 2013
- Republican hangover: it’s not the message, it’s the messenger - November 15, 2012
Print This Post
” . . . we cannot afford this.”
Really? We invaded a nation that, however dreadfully led, posed no direct threat to us and we didn’t stop to count the cost. Indeed, we did not even bother to pay for it. (Yet. But we will.)
We can afford to do that, which brought our country nothing (most notably, not security) and took thousands of American and allied lives, but we cannot afford to safeguard the health of our population, which would benefit us in so many ways?
This is the sort of perverted thinking that baffles the hell out of me. We can afford to provide health care for some of our population, but not all of it, not the unlucky or unhealthy or unwealthy parts.
Why not just say we cannot afford to do anything? That makes as much sense.
@ parsifal
those lives spent meant nothing? Have you been to Iraq to count the lives improved. I’ve seen them. You will say to me in the comfort of your home that those lives spent meant nothing? I disagree sir. Secondly add up the cost of the war over 8 years and the projected cost of this plan. What numbers do you get?
People read into things what they want to see. I said nothing about the meaning of lives spent. You are not the only American to have served in the military. As a U.S. Army veteran (1966-69) and the father and father-in-law of two men currently serving in the military, I would never say that. I would never say it, anyway, but those are additional reasons I would not.
What I said was we invaded a country that was not an active threat to us, and we did it on the basis of lies. I said we made no plans to pay for the war (but we will pay for it down the line, probably in the form of inflation, as after the Vietnam War).
If, as you imply, we are going to invade countries to improve the lives of their inhabitants — the ones, that is, who survive the invasion and subsequent warfare — then why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Its people are in far worse shape than Iraq’s, and its regime represents a far worse threat than Iraq did.
As for the cost, the numbers I get are from today’s USA Today newspaper: $44.6 billion. Think what we could have done with that money — say, on health care — if it had not been chucked down the rathole of an unnecessary war.
Addendum: Should have clarified that $44.6 billion is the estimated cost ONLY for reconstruction. The cost of conducting the war is, of course, many times that. And growing.
@ Parsifal
The logic behind your defense of the new health care law, namely that “The war costs a bunch of money too!”, is dubious in the face of his argument that we don’t have the money to spend on it.
Doesn’t it matter that we spend more on SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid than we do the war, or the DoD budget? Both SSI and Medicare (20% of the Federal Budget and 19% of the Federal Budget (1)) have year to year costs comparable to that of the Defense Budget. Combined, they far exceed the cost of the DoD. Why do you not target them as reasons we cannot afford Obamacare?
Could it be due to the fact that they’re liberal programs? That they are part of a constellation of liberal programs that far, far, far, far outspend the DoD every single year?
Don’t get my position wrong on this. I will be the first person to stand up and say that we need to cut military spending and get our butts out of foreign countries. However, by focusing on the military spending, based solely on ideological principle, while ignoring the bigger (and also ever growing) pile of money being spent on entitlements is the epitome of “ignoring the elephant in the room”.
You’re quick to advocate for cuts to the DoD budget. Are you so quick to advocate for cuts in Medicaid, since we can see by your years of service that you’re close to being in the program, if not so already?
1 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
I have never been in Medicaid, and see no prospect of being so in future. I cannot understand why you would assume that.
I said nothing about advocating cuts in defense spending. I said only that we should not have wasted money (and lives) on an unnecessary war. I do not know what it is that makes you leap to such unwarranted conclusions. Perhaps if we had not started the Iraq war, we would ipso facto need less defense spending. If not, at least we could have apportioned defense money (and, more important, American lives) more wisely.
Re: “in the face of his argument . . .” He did not have an argument. He made an assertion. There is a difference.
@Parsifal
I ask this question not to be a smarty pants, but because I genuinely do not know and would like someone well-versed in health care reform to answer it. (Anyone else with a firm grasp of the new bill’s provisions is welcome to answer this too.)
The skinny: I currently have an insurance plan that I’m happy with. It allows me to see the physician of my choice and treat my Type II Diabetes and related ailments in a fashion that I find optimal.
With the new legislation, will my ability to economically pick the doctor of my choice remain intact? Or will new constraints hinder my ability to economically choose?
I continue to say “economically” because I know that, in the long run, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn will always be able to afford the physician of their choice.
Will commoners such as myself retain this ability? Importantly, the issue goes beyond my own selfish concerns. For example, I’ve switched my child’s pediatrician in the past due to bad experiences and want some assurance that this freedom will remain intact.
Someone please tell me that I have nothing to worry about.
Here is what I understand, and I have looked at this and the other various permutations of health plans over the last few months more than the average geezer has:
Under what has been passed and signed by the president, you will be able to choose (in your case, keep) the doctor to treat your diabetes and other ailments. It will not be like the hated HMOs, requiring written referrals.
Indeed, it should stand you in better stead in that, should you lose your current insurance (through, say, loss of employment, though I hope that would not be the case), you could get comparable insurance at a price you can afford (most likely through an insurance exchange), and the new insurer cannot discriminate on the basis of your medical history.
In short, what it offers is much like what I get through Medicare, which is by far the best health insurance I have ever had. It is not “free”: I continue to pay for this or that (co-pays, mostly, and manageable deductibles), but nothing that I cannot afford — and my wife and I are on quite a limited income. I am happy to pay it.
More than you wanted to know, I imagine, but I hope it has been of help.
(OK, now those who hate the idea of Medicare are free to attack my explanation. Take wide swings; I’ll just duck.)
@Parsifal
Thanks for the info. It was helpful; I also found a NYT link later in the day that seemed to reinforce much of what you said:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html
Great comments. Independent of the War in Iraq, simple Accounting 101 will tell you we cannot afford the 900 Billion on healthcare. So, I thought it was a fair conclusion. Again, I like the bills details, but it does nothing to ease the strain on the doctor shortage. So I know more people will get care, but will the real sick get better care? Propably not. I think the real argument is was it the right bill at the right time. With most Americans satisfied with their healthcare, and a serious recession…no. As for “Miss Me Yet,” well that was a bit of comic reliefe. But remember, Iraq failures were more a result of bad execution than faulty motives. In 2003 the majority of America, and Congress! were in favor of a war with Iraq (unlike healthcare overhaul today). People forget just how threatening Sadam Hussein appeared to be. Clinton had a regime change policy that never made it past his term limit. It was not until things got difficult before everyone was saying that Bush duped them. If that war lasted 20 weeks, no one would have said a thing of the motives. It did and that’s when everyone convirted to victims of Bush’s evil lies.