I take this line from a friend of mine who is liberal and has no trouble comparing the USA to the USSR. I find this somewhat frightening. He did so somewhat with amusement thinking this progress is good. By progress I mean, the passage of the health care bill in the US Congress. Health care reform is not all bad and actually a necessity in the contemporary climate but I have my reservations about its passage which I am sure sparks grumblings in my European friends.
I will not summarize the contents of the bill partly because I don't know much truth about it, which brings me to my first concern...
1) Why is the bill not viewable by the public? We are the government we should have access to such legislation especially when the President promised it to us. I cannot trust the media or the politicians to tell me what is in the bill.
2) Costs I believe are underestimated. Cost will go up with the government regulation (control) over supply.
3) Regulation can be a good thing but controlling the market diminishes incentive and limits the abilities of capitalism to work. I understand market failures and the need for government but whether or not this is the appropriate method is debatable for me.
4) The government will require every person to buy health insurance. This makes people pay the government just to live. It is human right to live not a privilege. We are granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but I have to write a check to the government to live? The government now grants my life--controls it?
5) Taxes will be collected for four years prior to the payout of benefits. I understand the need to maintain a budget but this isn't about paying for the program later, it is about collecting more money now for excessive spending.
6) Legislators would not listen to the concerns of the people. Our representatives were granted powers as delegates, not trustees, and if people are concerned why not take time to educate them on why this is important and show them the benefits of the bill as opposed to saying that the American people will like it later. Hmmm. Don't put words in my mouth.
7)This last point leads to my next one. If government doesn't listen or respect its people and there concerns then I am concerned about more than the bill. I have enjoyed the benefits of socialized medicine in the UK and I will admit that there are advantages so education and analyzing appropriate methods would have been the best direction. People should understand the benefits of social welfare systems but they also need to realize that they have a price. Americans don't tend to understand this nor what 'socialism' is.
I opinion is that this was poorly organized and damages the image of American government. However, President Obama and his agenda were what won the election so this is the result. Have the people spoken?
1) agree with it
ReplyDelete2) costs will probably be higher
3) regulation in healthcare is something better than capitalism in healthcare. I dont think that it s very debatable from an ethic point of view.
4) i dont think your government control your life since you still have the freedom to do a lot of things (like choosing your spouses, changing country, etc...) on the other hand with a bill like the patriot act, ouch!
what happen if you happen to not pay this health insurance?
I think that if people dont want to be in this healthcare system, they may have the right to be out.
5) that may be some excessive spending to you but then again, it s healthcare and i think that it deserves a better system than capitalism, there are plenty of other way for the usa to save money i m sure; start looking in defence contracts
6) i dont really see your point but i believe that the reform of the healthcare system in usa has been a real long term project and that several president failed before. i guess today, your leaders felt that it needed to be changed in the light of what can happen when you dont put enough regularisation on other places (i.e. banks with subprime)
7) i think that some welfare systems bring a more human face to the society than capitalism. problem can happen to everybody and when you are in need it is always nice to know that you are going to get backed when it concern your healthcare. Maybe you have a society that is a bit more egoistic when it comes to that but i d be surprised.
I agree with you that education and communication on this matter is crucial and that your current government maintained things in an obscur environment, however its detractors are to blame too to use disinformation and equate socialism to communism, that s plain dumb and does not give a nice picture of them either.
Have the people spoken? electing Obama and his program was part of their wishes i guess.
I agree with you that regulation is probably better in health care. Health care exhibits a market failure in my opinion because of the difficulty putting a price on life. In this there is a lot of reason for intervention by the government and ethically, health care practices do need to change but on that note, I think that forcing people to pay years in advance is not ethical. Nor is listening to protests or the minority party. They steamrolled the system because they no longer had the supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate to try again. This goes to show that this was more or an effort to show the Democrats' power as opposed to passing appropriate legislation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to another one of your points, no, one can not opt out. Even if they have health care provided by their employer. I can't imagine that enforcement will be strong but the power for the government to enforce a five year prison sentence for not paying premiums is excessive and if we want to talk about ethics--unethical. Forcing someone to pay to live is not ethical.
People did vote to President Obama and they voted for change but the big issue is whether or not he has continued to listen to the direction of change they wanted to go. In that, I think not.
As I have been questioned about steamrolling the system, I want to explain it further...
ReplyDeleteThe Senate has what is titled a supermajority when they have more than 60 votes. It basically means they can pass anything. When Senator Kennedy (D-MA) who passed away was replaced by a Republican, the Senate no longer had the 60 votes. So, as a previous bill was already passed in the Senate, the House used a process called reconciliation to pass the bill so it would not have to return to the Senate where the Democrats would not have a supermajority. Does this help explain why it was not really the most kosher way to pass legislation.
i get the supermajority concept but i dont understand the thing with the previous bill that was passed. Was it about something similar? if yes, why did they need to vote on another bill?
ReplyDeletei am a bit confused about that.
is the expression "most kosher way" something that you made up or is it something common? in the case of an affirmative answer, it s interesting how religion are used in this context. In France we would say that it isnt catholic or unorthodox hehe.
The bill was passed in different forms in each house. They used the process of reconciliation to pass the bill. It was an unorthodox method because the House of Representatives went back and passed the bill the Senate previously passed. They knew that a new bill wouldn't make it through the Senate with the lack of a supermajority.
ReplyDelete