Isn’t it amazing that this Country can’t find the money to provide health insurance to millions of children, but we have no problem finding the money for oil company tax cuts and a war?
Isn’t it also amazing that a small minority of Republicans chose to stand with President Bush and uphold his veto of a bill that would have provided the health insurance so many families rely on? All I can say is good luck in next years elections to those who voted against the children on this one. Talk about fiscal responsibility all you want, but that was never the point.
Why are we willing to run up the national debt in order to prolong an unjust and unpopular war and not to, you know, save children’s lives?
Lots of questions, no answers.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Trust me Dan, there are plenty of answers, and all of them good. Unfortunately the explanation(s) fall(s) on deaf ears, with the same old rhetoric coming out of the Democratic Party…
And how is this rhetoric different than what comes out of the Republican Party? One could easily characterize their rhetoric as “money, greed, free market above all, mine – not yours” but you’d probably disagree with that assessment…
I’m not saying that either set of rhetoric is absolutely correct, but to respond that all the answers are good is misleading. My question (and I believe Dan’s) is, “why can we fund a war without accountability when we can’t fund health care for children?” I believe there *are* plenty of answers, but they aren’t *all* good.
Jill,
The answers I was speaking of were more mine than any “rubber stamped” Republican Party line. And yes, there are plenty of answers and they are all good.
I will actually answer your question, “Why can we fund a war without accountability when we can’t fund health care for children? .with a question – what makes you think we are funding a war without accountability? All money that goes to the military, war or otherwise, is observed, analyzed, and voted on by the House of Representatives, and US Senate. Last time I looked, both houses were Democrat controlled. Without going through every measure, regarding funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe both houses have voted to fund this war since its inception. Now you and Dan may believe that this is an unjust war, but make no mistake about it, there is plenty of accountability on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to funding this war.
Also, realize that we are currently spending money on health care for children. What was vetoed was the dollar amount. This is the rhetoric I speak of. To say that George Bush or the Republican Party is not funding health care for children is disingenuous. It has been the strategy of the left to come up with a dollar amount for a particular program, this example is, $35 billion over 5 years, and then any disagreement with that dollar amount (a veto, for example) is either considered a “cut”, or is spin as, “Republicans don’t care about families/children”…..which is systematically untrue. I am a conservative, a family man, an extremely empathetic person, and I agree with the veto of this bill.
This bill, as a whole, is a joke. There are so many holes for this program to be abused; it makes Wisconsin’s old welfare system look good. The intention of this bill, as good as it is, begs to be exploited; so much so, the proposed $35 billion will be bloated to unspeakable numbers. Don’t believe me???? Look at Medicaid, and Social Security. Realize, this bill is a microcosm of the larger picture….socialized medicine. I realize there is a time and place for the government to step in and help those that are poor, underprivileged, or unable to take care of themselves, but this bill is not the answer, and to systematically lambaste those that upheld the veto of this bill is shortsighted.
What’s worse, is to tie one political issue (the war in Iraq) to the other (this bill). It’s not only disgusting, but makes my point regarding the democratic rhetoric. Just look at “the honorable” Rep Pete Stark’s comments….. “You don’t have money to fund the war or children, but you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” WOW!
So what is the answer then Sean? And why do 81% of Americans disagree with the President and the Republicans (and 2 Democrats to be fair) that voted against health insurance for children?
As much as I’d like to, healthcare answers, private or goverment subsidized, cannot be accurately discussed on a weblog…..
Now, not to sound “wishywashy”, but a general answer is to look at healthcare, with a little more intelligence. We need to start by not making assumptions, and throwing out comments like “Republicans voted against health insurance for children.” Again, what was voted against, and what the MSM fails to clarify is, that the veto, and subsequent upholding of said veto was not a vote against children, but a vote against the totality of the bill. Specifically the dollars, but more importantly the ability, in the future, to abuse this service.
Why do 81% of Americans disagree with the President and Republicans? Well, 1) if you look at the wording of many of the polls, you’ll find that the questions are pathetic, at best. (ie: “Do you agree with the President vetoing healthcare for children?) and 2) 81%??? The most I’ve seen, even considering the “skewed” questions, was, 57% disapproved with the veto and the upholding of it by congress.
Sean,
I do believe we had a lengthy socialized medicine debate a few months ago, so I won’t go there right now.
Except for on one point –
I believe an ongoing debate during the last discussion was the “programs riddled with loopholes” vs. “an idea that shouldn’t summarily discarded because there are loopholes,” with the logic behind that being that no program can be loophole-free (no-bid contracts, anyone?). The idea that no government program should go forward unless it is absolutely bullet-proof is a great tactic to make sure that nothing ever gets done, and it might have been a good tactic (for both parties) to use when examining the “plan” for the war. So unless there are no uninsured children left in America, the need for some more money exists – the free market has not addressed the problem.
You hold up Medicaid and Social Security as bad examples, but I think the majority of Americans would disagree with you about these programs (maybe Dan can look up the stats for me :). Why? Because their parents and grandparents benefit from them (and someday, so might you) and they serve the common good (if you find the idea of elderly homeless people unappealing). I personally think the private health insurance system in this country sucks, and I don’t even have problems with mine. Yet “government inefficiency” is evil and “free market greed” is ok. Private health insurance companies are not motivated by any greater good. No business operates that way.
So I still believe that Dan’s original question boils down to: “how does our country get more bang for the buck from the war than it would from expanding health insurance for children?”
Jill,
The program riddled with loopholes is just one argument for not accepting socialized medicine, but I will address your other points. As far as I am concerned your premise that, “no program is perfect”, is right on target. The question is, do we go forward with the largest expenditure of money ever seen by the government (as more will be spent on socialized medicine than any other program the government has in their budget – and yes, it will be more than the military) on a program that is destined to be abused, and run poorly, at the expense of the tax payer (again)? Putting the government in control of programs such as this, wreak of inefficiency, poor care, and sky rocketing costs. Whether you believe it or not, that is the ultimate outcome of programs like this, being run by the government, more specifically the Federal government.
To address your Social Security and Medicaid discussion, realize that those are the two largest social programs we have in this country and they are in complete disarray. Unfortunately the majority of Americans do not realize, especially when it comes to Social Security that they are losing thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars by “investing” in Social Security – not that they have a choice. Ask any financial analyst about Social Security and you will get a diatribe of how pathetic it really is. My parents are never going to “benefit” from this program. How could you? After decades of giving the government their money, when my parents hit 65, they are going to get approximately $900/month. NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH! What is someone supposed to do with only $900/month? Now you could argue that they should invest in other things, stock market, real estate, etc. (which they did – thank goodness), but the original “intent” of Social Security was for all Americans to have enough money for retirement. Unfortunately that’s not the case. You mentioned I might benefit from this someday; well I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but the chances of me seeing MY $900.00/month (or less) is slim to none. Medicaid, well we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg on how messed up that program’s going to be. There is a segment of the population – baby boomers – that are going to start using this program, and right now there’s not enough money to support this program, much less when they’re on the government dole. As bad as you think our private health insurance in this country is, wait a couple of years, and listen to your parents and grandparents complaining about their government coverage, and you may have a different opinion.
Now I am not saying that our health industry, as a whole, is great, but I am not willing to make it worse, by putting it into the hands of our “able bodied” bureaucrats. Also, it is interesting that you choose to inject into conversation the specific wording ‘ “government inefficiency†is evil and “free market greed†is ok ‘. Just for the record, I never said government inefficiency is “evil”, nor did I say free market greed is “OK”. What I am saying is that I believe the free market, is a better option than government, Period.
” Private health insurance companies are not motivated by any greater good.” Now while that may be true, please do not think for one second that our congress and senate folks are motivated by any greater good. That is the great fallacy of the two sides of this issue, along with many others; Democrats are the caring, empathetic, “for the people” party, where Republicans are mean, money grubbing, “only for the rich” party. Both are far from the truth, and the American public have to start realizing that. To get our health insurance managed correctly and available to everyone, there have to be wholesale changes. The government, admittedly, has to be involved, but not so much so as to put them in charge of it. The very thought of that scares me.
As to the question, “how does our country get more bang for the buck from the war than it would from expanding health insurance for children?†I will say 1) neither should be measured in “bang for your buck”, and 2) One has nothing to do with the other. As far as I’m concerned, the military and this war are necessary, as is looking at insurance coverage for children. Lastly, remember, this bill was not vetoed because of the war in Iraq, nor was it vetoed (and upheld) because Republicans don’t care about children. It was vetoed because the bill is flawed. Nowhere, in any of the dialogue regarding this bill was there mention of not looking at expanding coverage. Just because this particular, poorly crafted bill was vetoed, does not automatically mean that George Bush and those that upheld his veto, hate children, or do not want to have healthcare for children. So let’s look a realistic option for healthcare for both children and adults.
Sean – you are a Godsend for me, personally. You articulate my argument(s) so much better than I do. I believe the same concepts you do, but have trouble getting them onto a comment section. Keep up the good work!
A couple of points to address …
but the original “intent†of Social Security was for all Americans to have enough money for retirement. Unfortunately that’s not the case.
Not true, the original intent of Social Security was to SUPPLEMENT retirement as well as provide a baseline dollar amount for unemployment and other temporary needs for families. It’s become a pig because politicians added benefits to gain public favor. But we digress …
What I am saying is that I believe the free market, is a better option than government, Period.
Amen!
Sean and Yeah Boy,
I’m not necessarily going to rebut here – our philosophies are obviously way too different for one side to convince the other. I can only try to explain where I’m coming from – beyond a point on a political topic – because for me, and I’m sure for you, our views are shaped by our experiences.
I am here because I received an excellent education (by union teachers), provided by the government – not the free market. Good thing, as my family could not have afforded a free market education. Because my dad suffered a devastating illness when I was in high school, I have been the recipient of loophole-ridden government programs that provide food for women and children (WIC), and health care (SCHIP). Again, the free market wasn’t dealing with these issues. I also received an excellent college education provided, in part, by government grants for needy students.
Do I hate the free market? Hell, no. It has been very good to me. And, in turn, to the government. That investment in me when I was younger has been returned, many, many, times over in the increased taxes I have paid over the years. Beyond that, it has given me the opportunity to contribute, both financially and personally, in ways that I could not have done without that investment by my fellow citizens.
Yet, the free market doesn’t work for everything. To see it as a cure all for every problem is to acknowledge that some people will die because they cannot afford the incredibly high cost of health care in this country. I believe that, as a civilized nation, we must provide a safety net for the vulnerable members of our society. In my book, that includes kids, the elderly, and the disabled.
So when you say,
What I am saying is that I believe the free market, is a better option than government, Period.
I say, probably true, if our entire society were made up of perfect people (ah, rainbows and ponies, no tragedies, no greed, and hands across America). Until that happens, some things should be the purview of the government, simply because the free market, which is not always motivated by the greater good, is not equipped to deal with them.
By the way, one could argue that the way that politics is being influenced by free market forces is not really a benefit to the greater good.
So, that’s my story, I’m not expecting a reply but thought it was important that while we talk about political points here, it’s often more personal than that. I’m sure it is for you too.
What I am saying is that I believe the free market, is a better option than government, Period.
Except, as is the case is here, when the “free market” doesn’t provide things like health care for the children of people who can’t afford it.
SCHIP provides children(!) with health care. There’s nothing wrong with that. It should in fact, be celebrated instead of chastised as the successful program it is.
Dan,
I think you’re missing my larger point. The free market cannot stand alone, but in the same vain, neither can government, when it comes to programs such as this. My point is, the solutions to problems, like healthcare for US citizens, cannot and should not be run by the government (State or Federal). Government, as I’ve said many times in my comments, has a place in this discussion, but they have not proven to me that they will make things better for EVERYONE.
I agree that we must make sure the future of our country, our children, receive proper care & nutrition, but I am not yet willing to put that and the healthcare of everyone in the U.S. in the hands of the most unaccountable, inefficient “organization” in this country. The problems of putting our healthcare future in the hands of the government are too numerous to discuss here, but if necessary could be listed, but I’ll hazard a guess that it would be futile to make that argument!?!?!
“…the most unaccountable, inefficient ‘organization’ in this country.”
And why does said “organization” have such a bad rap? For me, this goes to the very heart of the pros and cons regarding the appropriate role of any governing body. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – a government doesn’t have to be perceived as some random, faceless entity out to steal your money. A government is a living thing made up of people – specifically, people who want your vote. If the electorate truly cared about efficient and realistic health care programs, don’t you think they’d pay a bit more attention to the political process and turn out the vote on election day? I personally believe high voter turnout can translate into the highest level of accountability imaginable. It’s not all big bad government’s fault.
Sean,
There is simply nothing that makes things better for EVERYONE. I believe that, again, this is another argument against all government programs, period – in the same vein as the “loophole ridden” argument.
Les makes a good point, that the conservative painting of “the government” as inefficient and bad overall is misleading. It’s not capable of the level of evil decision-making that has been portrayed by government-haters.
Is it imperfect? Of course it is. It always will be. Just like people. Because it is created by and made of people. Can it be better? Absolutely, just like all of us, but I’m not sure it could ever reach your standard. Could it ever be efficient enough? Could it ever be accountable enough?
I’m still not sure how you believe the free market can address the health care problem. The only free market solution I see is if you can pay, you can have healthcare.
They may not make things better for everyone right now.
But for low and middle income children, the elderly, veterans, and every government employee, they are.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone, for example, who works for at the state or federal level and have “the government running” their health care that would complain about it.
And I put “running” in quotes for a reason, and that’s because they don’t run it for me or any other state employee, or child, or veteran for that matter. That’s one of the crutches against some for ANY involvement of the government in health care, that “they’ll be the ones deciding what kind of care you get”, and it’s just not true.
Les, “And why does said “organization†have such a bad rap?”, because they are inefficient, poorly run, and they have no real accountability. You state that the electorate is the accountability, and you are right, but unfortunately that electorate (the American public) is extremely apathetic. That fact is not lost on our elected “leaders”, just look at the reason that Dan is running for political office. In his opinion DeBruin is not a good leader, and whether I agree with Dan specifically on Lynne DeBruin or not, it speaks to the arrogance of incumbents, and political figures in general.
I agree with you, that if there were higher voter turnout, accountability by our elected officials would be real, and more quantifiable; The fact is, it isn’t, and I don’t see a change in that attitude anytime soon, and our elected officials are keenly aware of that. These career politicians (on both sides of the aisle) do in fact make up BIG BAD GOVERNMENT, and it is that fact that makes me fearful putting anything in their hands. Government is not the answer, on almost every question that is put in front of us. Is the government necessary? Absolutely! Is it the solution, very rarely!
Jill,
You are correct, there is no entity that can protect everyone, but to put healthcare under the direction of the federal government is not only fiscally irresponsible, but in the long run, a detriment to ourselves, and more importantly our children. Is the free market answering every persons needs? Hell no, but as you mentioned systems (whether they be the government or the free market) are run by people. My point is the people involved in the free market, are better qualified, more dedicated to quality and customer service than the people in the government. We, children and adults, will not get the same care as we do now, and the costs of this program will explode to astronomical proportions, which hurts EVERYONE. I am not asking for perfection out of government, what I am asking for is a MODICUM of accountability and efficiency. Our city, county, state, and federal government(s) are monsters, and by definition they breed inefficiency, it’s inevitable. My question to you, is how can you trust an entity (the government), that controls such things as the DMV, Social Security, and urban public grade, middle, and highschools?
I will say this again (as I’ve said in other comments), and PLEASE read carefully…..I do not believe that the free market is the complete answer to universal healthcare, but I believe they are better suited to address this issue than the government ever could. Government has a role in this discussion, now and for the future, I just don’t want them making the decisions.
Dan (wow, this is getting long),
We (non-government employees) are paying a lot for your healthcare, and if we were to put everyone on that same healthcare plan, trust me, you wouldn’t be getting the same care. The reason for that, is the costs for hospital stays, doctor visits, perscriptions, and the like are not going to change. What will change is the number of people on this Cadillac insurance. We, in the middle class, are barely able to, afford our taxes as it is, much less adding a social program of this size to the dole.
As for the government “running” the system, that is exactly what will happen. Almost every “small” tax that has been voted in for one program or the other has been extended and increased. Every good intentioned program has been expanded to the point of obsenity, and you are trying to tell me that every man, women, and child is going to get the same quality and excessibility to healthcare if the government is directing/running this program? The government will in fact make it a point to decide what kind of care we get, IT IS VERY TRUE. It may not be the case right now with public employees, but when you put a program of this magnitude in the federal budget, you better believe the government officials will make sure it is run by them….. They have proven that time and time again!
We (non-government employees) are paying a lot for your healthcare, …..
Sean – you beat me to it.
Sean,
I still haven’t heard how the free market can possibly address the overall healthcare crisis – I mean, there’s no financial incentive for them to just take care of people. That leaves it to the government.
And, I’d hate to say it, but my insurance is about as good as Dan’s, and mine comes through the private sector. Government employees don’t have a corner on great health insurance. But if you have insurance that’s not as good as mine, why? I mean, I work hard, but I suppose you do, too. Why should I get better insurance, which in the big picture translates into better healthcare, than you do?
If you could hold up a model for a government that does it right, which would it be? Please don’t point to the business world, they are just not the same thing. And they shouldn’t be. Businesses exist to make money, and it’s possible that on that front, the government is probably a little too business-like for you.
On the voter turnout problem, let’s go with the European model and fine people who don’t vote. If people want to say it’s their right not to vote, then I say fine, you just have to check a box on you ballot that says just that, but you have to go through the process.
On the voter turnout problem, let’s go with the European model and fine people who don’t vote.
Just to be clear, this was intended as a joke, right?
Only halfway.
Sean was saying that part of the problem with the electorate is that it isn’t really representative because of low voter turnout. I agree. Why shouldn’t people have to participate in exchange for living in the best damn country on earth?
And by the way, I’m not saying you have to cast a vote. But you have to do something with your ballot – either vote or say “I don’t believe in voting so I’m not going to.”
So, Yeah Boy (if that’s your real name), I’m ready to get off the healthcare thread, you ready to go on why it’s ok for people not to vote?
That one was a joke.
And so this comes down to ideology. For what it’s worth, my wife and I both pay the same amount you do in terms of taxes for “my” health insurance, which to be clear is quite different than paying for my or anyones “health care”. And it’s really not that much, which is the benefit that any large organization benefits from. Large organizations are able to bargain for lower insurance costs and see savings from lower administrative costs as well.
As I’ve said in the past, I’d pose a simple question about this to you and anyone else. If you were given the option of paying your current health insurance costs out of pocket as you do now with the yearly single or double digit increases that are the norm, or paying a similar percent of your pre-tax money on better health insurance for you and your family, which would you choose?
I suspect I already know the answer but thought I’d ask anyways, because I’ve found the common answers people give have more to do with their ideological stance than on a practical one.
Jill,
The free market is not the only entity that can solve the healthcare crisis. We, unfortunately, have to rely on government for some of the answers (as I have mentioned many times). I realize there are many people that have better insurance than I, and I’m OK with that. My question(s) to you is if we all have the same health coverage, who determines what that coverage is? You’re relying on the government to set that ceiling, and I believe…..NO, I know that’s a mistake.
The government question, for me, is simply answered, none. There is no government that does it right. I think we all agree that both government and the private sector were and are run by humans, and therefore not perfect. The issue for me is, who can do it better? My answer to that question is, not government (not saying that they do not have a part in the solution). As for government being to “business-like for meâ€, it is quite the opposite; on many issues, government is not business like enough.
Dan,
Your question is making a fairly large assumption, specifically, that I’ll get better healthcare if the government is supplying it, and I that won’t happen. Comparing the healthcare you receive now versus what you (we) would receive under socialized medicine are completely different. For example we have government supplied healthcare for our elderly, and that program is in absolute shambles. If they cannot effectively run that program, why would one think they could offer quality health insurance/coverage for almost 300 million people? Medicare mandates to healthcare organizations what they are willing to pay for services (socialized medicine) causing poorer care. That poor care is not blamed on ineffectual government “oversightâ€, no, it is argued simply that healthcare is just too expensive. What people fail to realize is, that it is not the insurance companies, drug companies, or hospitals fault. There are other forces (frivolous litigation creating higher doctor premiums for one) that add to the ever increasing cost of healthcare. We need to change the underlying problems first and then look at working out realistic solutions to the care that U.S. citizens receive. Government supplied healthcare is not the answer here. Socializing medicine will put us, coverage-wise, on par with Canada, and the last time I looked many of them are crossing over the border to get timely, quality healthcare. If we turn to the government for “universal healthcareâ€, where will we go????