By a vote of 219-212, the healthcare bill passed last night.
Here are a couple of images that say it all.
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer yucking it up.
Rep. Stupak with an executive order aborting (lol) federal funding for abortions.
Healthcare
One of the numbers Obama touted throughout his campaign was no tax increases for people making under $250,000/year. I was reading today on a blog written by the “Healthcare Economist” that seemed a bit troubling:
Tax credits for Health Insurance Premiums. This will do nothing to change how much health care costs, it will just change who pays the premiums. For middle class individuals, these subsidies will help make health insurance more affordable. Because the wealthy won’t receive any subsidy (the maximum family income to be eligible for the credit is $88,000), they will simply pay higher taxes.
Is that right? If you are a family making more thant $88k/year you’ll pay extra in taxes? If that is the case, that’s a direct contradiction of one of Obama’s main campaign promises. The site Politifact gives him a pass saying:
Obama’s promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. [...] Still, it’s a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.
I wonder what they’ll say about this, if it is true. Obama’s veracity aside, what do you think about having increased taxes if you make over $88,000? It’s not as if $88,000 makes you upperclass, you’re pretty much right in the middle of middle income. Doesn’t that make you feel that you’re being sold a bill of goods and that Obama’s primary interest is pushing forth a leftist agenda versus protecting the middle class?
It certainly does to me.
As Obama soldiers on in Ohio today to bring us universal health care, I continue to be troubled by the lack of compromise on one particular issue, and that is the Stupak Amendment. For those that don’t know, this is an amendment to the legislation under proposal that would prohibit federal funds being used “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion”.
For pro-life advocates such as myself this is a pretty large (read: huge) point. Regarding the whole business of a “public option” my personal sense of morality desires for everyone to have access to health care. If it costs me a little bit of money, I can hang with it so long as it doesn’t cost me an arm, leg, two teeth, and a vital organ. Nonetheless that same morality does not want my tax dollars to be used to pay for elective abortions (read: abortions in cases other than rape, incest, or life threatening to the mother).
Obama seems to be ignoring folks like me and that’s discouraging. He could argue that my perspective is simply that of a vocal minority but according to polls (here, here, and here) a majority of Americas do not want government funded abortions in this bill. So, Mr. President are you going to listen or are you going to continue to ramrod this down our throats?
I suspect that today in Ohio you’ll talk to us about how important passing this bill in and an anecdote about a woman probably around retirement age suffered from lack of health insurance. You’ll then talk about how we as the richest nation in the world can’t allow that to happen tugging on the heartstrings of your audience. But, Mr. President can we also allow for the federal government to support an elective procedure in the same way we shouldn’t (in my opinion) support health coverage for boob jobs. Life is certainly of greater consequence than silicone implants so how can you expect for millions of Americans to go along with your proposal with this still included?
Bah…I’m probably wasting my breath here but my hope is that those Congressmen who voted in favor of this amendment previously will not allow passage of the current bill without including this language. For some of my readers, this may seem like a very small point. It’s not for a pro-life advocate, not in the least bit. When you’re talking about life it’s that critical. The president is riding all over the country to provide health care for the poor and uninsured. I’m fighting for those who do not even (yet) have a voice for themselves, the unborn.
So, no thanks Mr. President, I do not want government-funded abortions.
Nancy Green – a usual recipient of an askew glance by your blog’s writer – writes about hoping to see universal healthcare passed over at Kmareka. Here are few of the more interesting lines:
I’m driving around making nursing visits, listening to the health care news on the radio. It hurts to have my hopes raised again. This whole debate has been painful and deeply disillusioning. Not only with my politicians, but with my fellow Rhode Islanders who told me face to face that an America where some people just have to die needlessly for lack of health care is acceptable to them.
There’s a lot to digest here. First, is there any common decent American who believes “some people just have to [emphasis added] die needless for lack of healthcare is acceptable to them”? Of course not.
What this boils down to are two pretty critical questions:
1. Should the government provide universal healthcare? Arguments favoring universal healthcare rely upon many of the underpinnings espoused by Green tugging at the heartstrings such as everyone is entitled to healthcare, people should not have to die because they can’t afford healthcare, as the richest nation in the world no one should have to suffer because of a lack of health care coverage, etc. While I believe that as the world’s richest nation theoretically no one should be without much of anything, yet I don’t always look to the government and/or hold them responsible for fixing the nations ills. What if we common-decent Americans tried to figure this one out ourselves instead of asking Big Brother to come in and “rescue” us and I use the quotes because any governmental system is likely to be a false rescue because…
2. How much will universal healthcare cost the average taxpayer? Universal healthcare is another step towards a more socialist environment that I’m not so sure America is ready for. It is welath redistributed and gives people another reason to heavily rely on the government for their day-to-day sustenance. I’m not so sure Green would have a problem with that, but I do believe most Americans would. Green noted how three people stopped to help a woman who had fallen on the street and no doubt our country is filled with people willing to help others. But the keyword is help. Imagine that same scenario but instead all of us must carry a person on our backs indefinitely without requiring them to at least think about helping themselves. That’s a problem.
So it’s not about “no we can’t” which is how many on the left like to reduce opposition to the universal healthcare proposals the president has put forth. Instead it’s “we can do this the right way” and anything less would be foolhardy and birthed out of a compassion not measured against common sense. And when it comes to our nation’s future we must possess the ability to see beyond our heart and think with our heads as well.
It’s called Universal Healthcare!!
Stay with me now. Representative Joe Wilson is taking heat – deservedly so – for saying “You lie!” to the president who was giving a speech on healthcare. Wilson was basically saying the President Obama is trying to include illegal immigrants as part of his public option plan.
Maybe he isn’t, but these guys are:
Fearful that they’re losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access.
The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party’s spines on the contentious issue, say it’s unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they’ve been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.
Let me note for the record that I have very little problem with legal immigrants in a public option system, if one were available. Now that that is out of the way take a look at the bold underlined section. Illegal immigrants – commenter Joe Bernstein would say they are not “immigrants” – are committing a criminal act just by being here. Yes, they’re human beings but no we cannot just sing “Kumbaya” and establish no control over the boarders. Some liberals, especially the ones supporting the extension of “some” (read: all) health care benefits to illegal immigrants, don’t have the spine to say no to illegal immigration but they can certainly stand up and take money out your pocket. No problem there.
But I digress.
Another tenet that has been in the mix of this public option debate are fines for anyone who does not get health insurance.
Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.
We solve our illegal immigration problem in a round about way. Because most companies do not wish to break the law and hire an illegal immigrant, it’s highly unlikely many illegal immigrants would be able to pay for their own health care. Thus, they would be fined and that may spark inquiries into their immigration status.
Am I being facetious? Yes, so this doesn’t really solve the illegal immigration problem. But it does demonstrate some members of Congress’ willingness to burden the average American while placing no boundaries upon people here illegally. And that’s plain silly.
Froma Harrop is for me, the singular most frustrating writer within the Rhode Island journalistic diaspora. Yes, she trumps even Pat Crowley for me. In a recent Projo article, she writes:
According to the poll, some 55 percent of Americans want a public option, with only 42 percent against it. That level of support was actually up slightly from a month earlier.
Here we have two recent polls showing significant backing for the public option. Ordinary Americans are for it. And physicians — the group with one of the biggest stakes in health-care reform — are even more strongly in favor. (It’s odd how few polls have sought the views of doctors, those most intimate with the medical system.)
So how did the public option become such a boogeyman that even moderate Democrats feel they must run from it? Or are some of them also on the insurers’ campaign payroll?
Well, if you do just a modicum of digging you’ll find that support for universal healthcare has waned significantly since 2003. From the same pollsters who brought you the cited poll, they found in 2003 that:
In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.
Americans express broad, and in some cases growing, discontent with the U.S. health care system, based on its costs, structure and direction alike — fueling cautious support for a government-run, taxpayer-funded universal health system modeled on Medicare.
It’s not lost on me that the questions asked in 2003 were different than in 2009 but we have an increase of 10% opposed to “universal healthcare” as well as a 7% drop in support while healthcare costs have not significantly dropped in the ensuing years. I’d argue the contrary.
I point this out to say, lefty types like Harrop (if one may call her a lefty type) are trying to say, “See the people want this!!” in order to dismiss the real problems that are inherent with a universal plan. As I posted earlier, we need to try alternative solutions before choosing the “public option”. Most of the concern regarding healthcare is not that Americans really want the public option, it’s that they really want to lower their healthcare costs and for the government not to take their doctor away. That’s it.
Yet, the overwhelming amount of rhetoric in the debate has been public option or bust, especially from liberals, and citing various polls showing public support for universal healthcare. I’m not trying to undermine the support, what I am saying is that that support should be leveraged to find the best solution and understood for what it is. It is Americans saying “we need lower costs” but it is not saying “give me universal healthcare or give me death!!”
To Harrop and others, I don’t think they are able to make that distinction.
Before I begin, I want to disclose that my son has been on Medicare for the last two years as he has received services for his autism. Those services are pricey and my private insurance doesn’t cover it whereas the Medicare does. Now, that that’s out of the way here goes nothing…
From my cursory exploration, Medicare is going to be insolvent by the year 2017. According to the 2009 Medicare brochure, “Medicare & You”:
Medicare is health insurance for people age 65 or older, under age 65 with certain disabilities, and any age with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).
So folks like my son or very old people are eligible for Medicare. It would seem that as a country we have decided that the elderly and those who have some form of disability need health insurance and that our government will pay for it. That sounds great and makes you feel a bit warm and fuzzy inside, right?
Well, if our current “public option” is going to be insolvent in a few years what’s the incentive to allow the government to create an even broader-based healthcare program? In other words, if the government is unable to handle Medicare/Medicaid what makes us think it will be able to drive health care costs down, provide proper health insurance to the un and underinsured, and all of the other things caught up in public option proponents’ messaging?
Not much if you ask me.
To me universal healthcare should be our last resort. I agree that the government should play a role in driving healthcare costs down and doing all it can – without a public option – to provide a framework where most Americans can be insured, if not all. I don’t think we have yet exhausted all of the things the government can do in lieu of a public option. Listed below are two ideas, the second being my preferred method:
- Health care co-ops: This is getting some run in national media but no-play at the local “liberal” blog level. Essentially, members of the health plan would own it. As a mostly fiscal conservative, I love the idea, as it would put my dollars to work for me as I saw fit. Obviously, there are some drawbacks such as how to get one of these off the ground such as determining what, if any, savings co-op members would enjoy versus say Blue Cross Blue Sheild members. Still, this option represents a fundamental mind-shift – if you will – away from the public option as it puts the power back in the hands of the people and not the government.
- Massive overhaul of health insurance rate regulations: I like this idea a lot. Like I said earlier, the government is in the health insurance game today via Medicare and prices continue to soar. What they need to do is not just become another player but begin to regulate the market. I know that runs counter to my general fiscal conservatism but to me health care should be looked at like a utility. We all need it at some point in our lives so why should a utility be regulated less than health care?
Thus, I think there are at least two alternatives we should explore before going down this road. Once we have a public option there will be no turning back and while insurance companies would hate it, they’d hate it even worse if they were treated like a utility.
What do you think?
