I've been waiting and watching for other people's responses to the health care reform that passed the House Sunday evening. There's still some tweaking the Senate needs to do, and I hope they can pull it off so the bill is the best it can be now that it's through (if only Republicans saw that they can't sink it anymore, and they should try to make it the best law possible, there wouldn't be a "vote #" issue). Mostly I've been watching my family members via a social networking site where we all keep in touch because many of them are Palin supporters who think welfare is for the lazy (so you can sort of assume where they place their hat on political issues). They've been surprisingly silent...until a single ambiguous post last night, which has had me thinking.
Others have been using this term in debates and discussions the past year, and it didn't really impact me until I was trying to digest the meaning behind a single sentence. The word is "entitlement".
Was health care reform done because a subset of the American people feel "entitled"? A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" actually doing something "for the people" wouldn't be wrong anyway. But this legislation had nothing to do with entitlement. If it did, it would've been single-payer or an expansion of Medicare to everyone. And since when did the "pursuit of life" become a bad thing in the United States?
What this reform was really about was a correction of an out of control corporate system. See, the government is of the people, for the people. Corporations (even health insurance companies) are of the people, for the corporation. S0 a while back a number of these self-serving institutions were set free because the government was run by people who were not for the people, but were for the corporations as well. An oversight in leadership and priorities leading to de-regulation (or a lack of regulation). So now, these entities are preying on the sick and dying, taking money from the healthy as well, with promises that when they're sick and in need there will be aid, but when that time comes the entity has nothing but excuses, without delivering the services paid for in good faith. The reform is attempting to stop this. It is not about entitlement, it is about correcting a wrong - a wrong that leaves the people bankrupt, sick, and dead.
The government isn't guaranteeing benefits, they are guaranteeing access to purchase the benefits and guaranteeing that the services will be rendered as promised. Save the entitlement arguments for when single-payer is being drawn up (hopefully that won't take 50 years like this reform did).
*what's really absurd is the entitlement comments are usually from someone in a government health program (VA, Medicare, Medicaid)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Toby Beth Jarman
Dr. Evan Levine
Oryoki Bowl
Fay Paxton
lorianne
Mary Ann Sorrentino
Salon.com
Comments
I live in a predominantly republican area. It is likewise populated by what some people would call "trailer trash". I can never understand, why they believe every word out of people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Have they not learned that the republican party, is the party of the rich? They care nothing, about these peons. They only care about their votes!
R
"It is not about entitlement, it is about correcting a wrong - a wrong that leaves the people bankrupt, sick, and dead."
Amen.
Ideally, in a free market if they don't serve a need they go out of business.
I suppose you think elected politicians have your best interest in mind because they can be voted out of office. However the bureaucracies that they have created remain and whenever these need more money there is never an end of politicians ready to find a way to tax you more for it.
Having not read the healthcare bill myself I can really only go by my own experience in dealing with bureaucracies and various government agencies. I am not saying they don't mean well and that the people that brought them into existence weren't well intentioned -- and all the promises made didn't sound great and make people feel warm and fuzzy all over.
What you and so many never seem to take into account is what happens in the future? What incentives are there for these institutions to be frugal and wise with your money? What incentive is there for them to even think of it as YOUR money?
The entitled class in this country is becoming more and more the government bureaucrat. They have everything in life you probably want but will never get: job security, power, and better healthcare and retirement than you.
You seem to have a great fear of the "evil millionaire" down the street. I wish you had more concern for the simple bureaucrat. They have the power to regulate your life and control it in a way no millionaire can.
If you want an example of services of any kind coming down in price and being more affordable for more people -- which truly is an act of compassion and equality -- you need look at the history of a free market.
The free market made the computer you are now using affordable to people all over the globe.
And in the area of health care, such a market has made once costly procedures like lasik eye surgery now routine and affordable for most who want it.
Rest assured, Obamacare will result in greater waste, higher costs (hidden perhaps from you at first because you won't be paying it), and greater government control over your life.
Next they will be telling you how many miles a week you should jog -- and they will penalize you financially if you don't.
All for your own good, of course!
And your asterisk marked and italicized addendum about the absurdity of Vets and elderly (they being the ones covered under the VA, Medicare and Medicaid) complaining about entitlements is ludicrous. Who has a better right to complain about entitlements than those who have placed their lives on the line and the elderly who have invested their entire lives in this country? In other words, who have EARNED their entitlements.
Retablo, I would rather have a system that spends the money it gets wisely to an acceptable end for those paying into it than one that props up companies that don't follow through on the services offered. Yes, bureaucracy is horribly inefficient, but making it more efficient shouldn't be avoided simply because it's still somewhat inefficient. (e.g., would you rather lose $100 or $10,000? sure, losing nothing is best, but that isn't really an option provided at the moment). btw, lasik is hardly affordable (also, it's elective, unlike $50,000 cancer treatments)
To everyone else, thanks for the comments and discussion
Take the simple act of buying contact lenses. A law passed in California says a prescription is only valid for a year. That means you have to pay to have yearly eye exams EVEN IF you know your eyes haven't changed! To me this flies in the face of common sense.
I think I should have the right to be the master of my own eyes. I think I should be deemed intelligent enough to decide if I can see well enough so long as I pass an eye exam for my driver's license.
Once the government is involved things are no longer voluntary but become mandatory. And they don't usually motivate you with rewards (like you get when you buy a plasma tv from a company) but with penalties (buy my plasma tv or else!).
Liberty works because we all have different opinions and what better way to allow people to exercise their different opinions than through liberty?
How much do you want to bet that more people claim to be "Christian Scientists" so they can object to mandatory health care?
Anyway, I won't say any more. I'm not in favor of trying to overturn Sunday's vote because I think that would be too divisive for the country. But please understand that many of us see any time that a freedom is lost as a sad event and not a joyful one.
In Los Angeles government regulation has driven out many businesses. The apartment building next to mine must pay to raise balcony railings about three inches -- not for safety reasons but to meet a code requirements.
This is our future. Especially so long as no one stands up to counteract it.
Government wants security and stability for themselves and they will take it step by step and at any price.
If you have been listening to Nancy Pelosi and others on the democrat side, who are all for single payer, it will become an entitlement at some point in the future.
A bill has already been introduced to add the Public Option. They will do it incrementally. Just as was done with Social Security amd Medicare.
Then it will join the other bankrupt entitlement programs.
"Entitlement" is right-wing dogwhistle code for "money that 'those people' get from the government."
"Those people" is dogwhistle for "anyone we don't think deserves it". This is usually reserved for people of color.
Which explains a lot about right-winger and teabagger rage at the passage of the health care reform law.
yes that's the problem. There's always a so-called "good reason" for over-ruling an individual's free judgement, and usually the only way "around" the ruling (that an "expert's" opinion about my eyes should trump my own) is me spending more money (in this case, shelling out for two or three years worth of lenses) which leads to waste as well as the potentially unhealthy practice of storing lens longer than necessary.
Don't you see that the actual result of the "well-intentioned" law that a contact lens prescription is only good for a year is to deny the individual their free judgement in addition to tarnishing the relationship between the care-giver (the Ophthalmologist) and patient because now the patient doesn't know if the doctor in fact does care about the health of your eyes as much as you do or just wants the $$$ he gets from seeing you every year even when it's not necessary because then he can have a chance to change your prescription and get even more $$$ or ask you for other unnecessary procedures. Money ($$$) going out of patient into the doctor and the government is now the unspoken focus of the transaction, not the health of the patient.
By your response you have already decided that I am not smart enough or don't care enough about the health of my eyes to decide on my own when and if I should see an eye doctor -- which may be once a year, but I should be free to decide that. Instead you want it put into law when I should see an eye doctor, and maybe a "clever" way around the law can be found if I'm willing to go through the steps, or I can just settle for what I don't really want -- glasses.
This ought to be a clue to you and others what we are in for with Obamacare. When the judgement of the individual is ruled inferior to that of the expert or the government, they will tell you what the correct options are and the solution -- and ration out the less satisfactory solution to you.
You don't believe in the wisdom and the freedom of the individual, and sadly that explains why you and others could look upon the nationalization of healthcare in this country as a good thing when it is absolutely a tragic step in the history of this country.
You are so intent at seeing the insurance industry as the villain when whatever profit they make has been independently shown to be about 3% at most, industry wide. Do you know how that compares to Medicare? Fraud in Medicare alone exceeds 3%, yet you want to trust government over private industry that in order to stay in business must compete for your loyalty to them.
It truly is a sad day.
"Profit-hungry insurance companies were never the problem. (according to American Enterprise Institute economist Andrew Biggs, industry profit margins are around 3% and the entire industry recorded profits of just $13 billion last year, close to a rounding error in Medicare fraud estimates.) Rather, healthcare costs have been skyrocketing because consumers treat health insurance like an expense account. Putting almost everyone into one "risk pool" doesn't change that dynamic; it universalizes it. And eventually, the only way to cut costs will be to ration care."
-http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg23-2010mar23,0,6611246.column
This isn't the nationalization of the healthcare. That was the entire point of my post. And I do think people should make the choices about their own care, also a point of my post (the insurance companies currently call the shots). I know we won't agree on this, but I just wanted to point out that you are saying I think things that I really don't.
And yes, a trained optometrist has the equipment and skill to know whether your eyes are healthy when you do not. You can't see your own retina or the equipment as your eye is being measured, sometimes assistance is needed while still being in control of your own health because of personal limitations in function. It isn't mandatory to see an eye doctor, just that prescriptions be up to date if you choose to use them (and yes, for safety and to eliminate liability). That example is the entirely wrong choice for your argument.
FLYTHE: It's just going to be like Christmas, I mean it's going to be great. No worries, you know, the bills, we can go ahead and pay our copay and be all right.
No entitlement mindset there.
People without insurance get emergency care at hospitals. When they can't pay that cost gets rolled into hospital overhead and paid by people who can pay.
Someone who is sufficiently crippled by their health that they can't work will eventually get Medicaid.
Where our system fails is at hard-working people who've had bad luck or bad genes. People who can and want to work. Who don't want to go bankrupt to qualify for Medicaid.
Get a long-term expensive disease and lose your job. After the COBRA runs out, you're hosed. Or if the company goes bankrupt and drops health insurance, there's no COBRA for you. You're hosed. Just try finding a new job that comes with insurance coverage that doesn't rule out pre-existing conditions. Try finding affordable private insurance that will cover your pre-existing condition.
Does it help society to require such people to go bankrupt before they qualify for Medicaid?
There used to be no such complication in the relationship between Ophthalmologist and patient because it was assumed that I, the patient, had the common sense and intelligence to decide when I should have my eyes examined. My good judgement was enough, and because it was enough there was no concern I had that my eye doctor might be more interested in something else (such as money) than the health of my eyes: because I was the one who determined the time-table for my visits to see him, not a government regulation that makes no sense. For most of your life your eyes don't change yearly, and even if they do you can tell if you want to have your eyes checked or not!
You don't think under Obamacare it could be a "requirement" that you do something yearly -- at your expense -- in order to receive some kind of service? Even if you don't agree with it?
Now almost every time I visit the eye doctor it is essentially an exercise in futility that I am paying for. Plus, I must now suspect that it is all being done so that he can charge me a fee and not because of my eyes because I know if my eyes have changed or not. I look through them every day!
Common sense was once enough to tell me to get my eyes checked, not a government mandate that a prescription should last only a year so as to make it a de-facto requirement that I have yearly eye exams.
To me this is a clear example of the often unintended consequence of "good intensions" of government regulations. Your right to use your own best judgement is taken away from you.
I sit here in the province of Ontario, in Canada... my BFF comes home from hospital today. I came pretty close to losing him. He's 86.. had serious heart trouble. He was admitted to emergency over a week ago and had lots of scans which pinpointed what was going on. He was then admitted and placed in a room for two. He has had several doctors (one was primary), lovely nurses, well prepared meals and a pacemaker was installed yesterday. Canada's health insurance plan doesn't rank at the top in the world and the hospital struggles to manage costs. But he received world class care and will return home without financial concern. He's been paying for it through taxes for lo these many years.
Canadians seem to believe that their citizens are entitled to health care regardless of financial class. That attitude is all around me.
A very civilized attitude..
I would agree that the current effort at reform has boiled down to insurance companies actually serving their customers. The requirement that all be insured is sensible in that if people elect to get insured only after they become sick the whole insurance concept falls apart. For the whole thing to work, everyone has to be putting in a small amount and only drawing out when they need. Otherwise insurance companies either go broke or become too expensive.
At present, though, insurance companies are doing very well. I will have to do a bit of research, but the 3% profit margin number that was thrown out was only sourced to a pundit who is not an expert on health care and did not himself provide a source for that number. The numbers I have heard thrown around are a bit higher.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I got goosebumps when the president signed Health Care Reform into law. How many years has the insurance industry needed some regulation? It is about having government concerned for our safety. Fire and Police departments, garbage dumps, schools, roads, safe food and hospitals. I want to feel safe in a hospital and I want to know that my eyeglass perscription is current and not expired like a useless pill in the drugstore that is past its expiration date.
You can go to Costco and get a quick exam for forty dollars that updates your prescription. Industry and government can work together to insure all our safety. When people say that they want to be left alone to take care of themselves they seem to forget some of the atrocities that happen in the world. Freedom is fine until you need help.
I had this talk in a thrift store today. One of the check out ladies said "Oh there is tax to pay on your purchase too." I said, "I dont mind taxes. I want the government to take care of us." The other check out lady disagreed. "I think we should take care of ourselves." I said that was fine until we needed help. Then the other lady talked about Denmark where things are taken care of and how safe people felt. I left the store quickly. So glad that in America we can stand and have a conversation in public about these things. Politics and religion can result in discussions that end in violence. Neighbor against neighbor and families destroyed. Thank you for this post and the intelligent comments.
I'm in complete agreement that health care needs reformed. I'm in complete disagreement that it needs to be taken over by the government, which is what this bill is reaching toward, even if it is not there yet.
Read Harv: http://TheHarvView.blogspot.com
You have no clue what the reform was. Subsidies will be towards purchasing a private insurance policy (technically it'll be a tax credit as it'll be enforced by the IRS - the federal govt has the right of taxation based on the Constitution). So then yes, he'll have a copay and an insurance policy and premiums, albeit subsidized premiums. It's not a government takeover as you claimed in your impeachment post on your own blog, and it's not government run. It's regulation and reform of the insurance industry in order to counteract increasing health care costs. The long-term goal is to bring down medical costs in general, though that hasn't been addressed directly in this reform because of the trouble they had getting the reform through.
Rats. If the people we admitted last night had insurance and didn't pay their co-pays my employer, good ol' St. Careforyou would still be doing better financially. We're a non-profit but we still have to pay the utility bills, etc.