God Complex In Congress Over Healthcare Both Left and Right

Share |

Besides being diametrically opposed to an individual mandate that all Americans carry and maintain medical insurance, there are constitutional hurdles that stand in the way that will have to be moved in order to make a mandate possible.

The United States Supreme Court has long upheld the individuals right to refuse any medical treatment, even if that refusal of treatment is detrimental to the health of that person. Therefore, logic no longer resides in the theory of a government to mandate for every citizen to buy medical insurance if the government cannot mandate that any American undergo medical treatment.

Secondly, I have not heard anyone address the number of Americans who reject medical science for religious or other reasons. While the right to deny medical treatment applies only to a competent adult, that fact that courts are over-riding parents wishes to refuse medical treatment on behalf of their minor children is an alarming trend that will eventually have to be applied to all Americans in order to enforce the individual mandate. The right to deny medical treatment will have to go. There is no other way.

I have no opinion about weather a parent has the right to deny medical treatment on behalf of a minor child, but in the case of A Minnesota mom and her 13-year-old son, who has Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She went on the run from law enforcers after a court ordered x-ray showed the boy’s tumors are growing.

The judge in the case says the boy’s parents are medically neglecting him. The family belongs to a church that believes in natural healing and boy himself didn’t want the treatments. As the law stand now, and perhaps rightfully so, only adults have the right to refuse medical treatment, but that right cannot stand in the face of this healthcare mandate.

Cases such as these aren’t isolated by any means, but they bring up a lot of questions. Is this showing obedience to God or is it parental negligence? Didn’t God create medical treatments so why not use them? Or has God predetermined how long we’re all going to live and using modern medicine is ignoring God’s will for our lives?

If Americans give in blindly to an individual mandate, that question will be answered once and for all. It will be the United States Government playing the role of God and denying medical treatment will be ignoring the Governments will for our lives? – God’s will is therefore moot….

Both sides of the aisle in congress are guilty and complicit in this crime against humanity. The Liberals for even entertaining a government forced mandate against the will of the people, and the bible thumpers on the right for not attacking it from a religious perspective.

They’ve attacked from the most ridiculous positions like socialism, Marxism, Nazism, etc. It’s amazing how quick they are to quote the bible, except when the perfect opportunity presents itself to do so.

Chico Brisbane

.

Repubs & Dems Find Common Ground On Healthcare

Share |

Republicans and Democrats have finally found common ground in the debate over the healthcare reform bills moving through Congress. Unfortunately for the bills' advocates, the two sides are united in their distaste for a central part of the legislation: the requirement that every American obtain health insurance.

The complaint from the right is that forcing people to buy policies is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty. The critique from the left is that the mandate imposes too great a burden on members of the working class, who would have to spend up to 12% of their incomes to buy policies. Some say that the mandate wouldn't be fair unless the government slaps price controls on insurers to prevent costs from climbing even further. However, a majority of Americans do not see the logic of mandating Americans to use their hard earned money to buy into a healthcare system that everyone agrees is broken.

Both sides have a point, although we don't think a mandate is unconstitutional or that price controls would be effective. It seems coercive to require healthy people to buy policies they don't believe they need. But how many drivers consider themselves accident-prone? And yet we require every car owner to maintain insurance in order to pool risks and spread the costs generated by the fraction who do get injured behind the wheel. Nor does it seem fair to demand that people buy health insurance when the price is rising so rapidly.

But it's hard to fix the inefficiencies and misaligned incentives in the healthcare industry unless all consumers are covered by insurance policies that promote preventive medicine and wellness.

Here's another reason for an individual mandate. To make coverage available to the people insurers routinely reject -- the ones with a history of costly ailments -- the bills would require that insurers offer policies to everyone, with premiums based on customers' location and age instead of their medical histories.

Such a system would give people no incentive to buy coverage, however, until they needed medical care. Unless everyone were required to obtain insurance, only the least healthy people would sign up, and premiums would skyrocket.

Individual mandates are merely a means to an end, so the bills' sponsors should be willing to explore other approaches, such as creating subsidized high-risk insurance pools to cover individuals who've been denied conventional policies.

They should also attack costs more aggressively and provide more options for affordable coverage. Still, we've yet to see an alternative that solves the inefficiencies caused by uninsured and underinsured consumers waiting too long to obtain care.

That's why we continue to back an individual mandate as an integral part of the effort to slow the growth in spending and improve the quality of care for all Americans.

The Only Agreement On Healthcare Is NO MANDATE!

Share |

The assertion that an individual mandate that will require most individuals to carry “basic health insurance" is similar to how most states require it's residents to carry auto insurance is not a valid argument on many levels.

The risk to life and property, other then that of an individual who operates a motor vehicle on public roads and highways is unarguably substantial. The risk is forseeable and therefore, such legislation was imposed to protect those who might suffer personal injury or property damage as a result of the actions of another person.

This arguemnt cannot be made in relation to an individual mandate requiring people to carry "basic medical coverage" because such legislation does nothing to protect the health and welfare to persons other then the individual or as a result due to the actions of another individual. There is no quantitave risk that one person opting not to carry personal medical insurance can pose to the health or welfare of another individual.

Secondly, once you allow the Federal Goverment to dictate what Americans do with their after-taxed spendable income, where does it stop? - What will Americans be mandated to purchase next by order of the Federal Government? - Life Insurance? - Travel Insurance? - U.S. Savings Bonds? - Treasury Notes? - Time Shares in Maui? - I know that suggesting mandated time share purchasing in Maui sounds rediculous, but the point is that if you allow it to happen once with healthcare, you not only run the risk of finding out what's next, you lay the foundation for it because something will be next. You can count on it.

Now I'm all for healthcare reform that provides access to affordable medical insurance to those that want to have it, but can't afford it. There are many people in the country that can afford it, but choose not to carry it and the assertion that those who seek emergency room medical care result in a burdin to taxpayers is absolutely laughable. Doctors have a hard enough time getting paid by the private medical insurance companies, the assumption that the Federal Government just hands over payment if full all willy-nilly to every hospital that provided treatment to an uninsured patient is not only laughable, it's hysterical.


I've sought emergency room treatment for kidney stones when I was unemployed last year. I carried COBRA as long as I could, but it was no longer possible. My hospital bill came to $2700 and because I couldn't pay with in 30 days, the account was referred to a collection agency. I paid the bill in 6 monthly payments and at no time did the Government or taxpayers step in to cover my debt and the assertion that such a thing is a normal occurance is laughable.

The federal government allots pennies on the dollar for hospitals to provide treatment to the uninsured for typically trauma related injuries. If anyone thinks that uninsured people are walking into emergency rooms to get kidney or liver transplanst or even life saving dyalisys, you'd be wrong.

I think the problem is with those who seek medical treatment with no intention whatsoever of paying one thin dime. But you know what? - That's not my problem! - I may not have been able to pay my hospital bill within 30 days, but I told the hospital that upfront and they treated me anyway. Now that I work for an small manufacturer that covers my medical, dental, and vision 100% - I've sought out a primary care provider at the hospital that helped me when I needed it most.

If the Government thinks that mandating basic medical coverage is so important, then the Government will have to administrate that process as well as funding it through payroll deductions. They will also have to provide a public option that will insure cost reductions that will make it affordable for those who earn the least.

Another insulting assertion that contridicts other liberal talking points is the claim that an alarming number of uninsured Amercians are forced into bankruptcy over unpaid medical bills. Well.....I thought that bills left unpaid by all of those uninsured deadbeats become the burdin of the taxpayer? - If's that's true, there should not be any unpaid bills or forced bankruptcies.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of those driven to bankruptcy where insured, but went into bankruptcy after being dropped by their medical insurance provider.

If this administration thinks that they can bring about meaningful medical insurance reform by enforcing an individual mandate, without providing a public option, and not funding such a program through payroll deductions, then they will only succeed in making a critical situation even worse.

If congress thinks that they can rely on the individual to manage and maintain uninterrupted medical coverage month-after month, and year-after-year, then they need only to research how effectively Amercians maintain their state mandated auto insurance coverage. Some of the worst collisions occure during those few days and weeks where the individual was uninsured because they simply had to earmark those funds elswhere.

Just imagine if Social Security, Medicare, and State Unemployment Insurance were not funded through payroll deductions and the government just left it up to the individual to calculate their deduction on a weekly basis and then mail in a check to the government at the end of the month. How rediculous is that? - So, I'm not sure how anyone in congress can think that this is a good idea for healthcare?

I would rather see healthcare reform die and whither on the vine then to see Americans forced into paying for something that they do not want, do not need, and in some cases for religious reasons, do not believe in. I find it curious that nobody is talking about the number of Americans that reject medical science and refuse it even if death will be the ultimate result. What about those people? - Are they going to be forced to pay for something that they'll never use?

If this administration imposes healthcare legislation that has an individual mandate, but no public option, I forsee outraged Americans gathering once again in Washington DC, but this time in numbers that will make the Sept. 12th Tea Party look like a fucking TupperWear Party. You can write that down!

Chico Brisbane