Comments on: Abortion is Not Health Care

By: c-kingsley

c-kingsley — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:23:49 +0000

Mary — assuming a government made up only of saints and angels, then a government mandate to buy health insurance would not be government control of health insurance.

Too bad for us.

HR3200 (the precursor to the current HR 3962) specified the levels of co-payments that would be required. HR 3962, section 2401 sets up a “Center for Quality Improvement” to promote “best practices” in health care by doing four things: 1) identify existing best practices, 2) develop new ones, 3) evaluate both, and 4) implement them. What better way to implement their chosen best practices than to mandate that only the best practices be covered by insurance?

Even if you ignore the fact that the federal government’s SOLE justification for this usurpation of our freedoms is the commerce clause (they have the power to regulate interstate commerce, therefore, they’re grabbing control over everything that can remotely affect interstate commerce), this bill is horrible in many ways. The National Right To Life Committee has been able to get through some of the 1900 pages of HR 3962. See what they think of it here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetterHR3962passage.html In brief: its horrible and more horrible. Good thing you’ll get to pay for it, one way or two others.

By: SeanReynoldsNZ

SeanReynoldsNZ — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:31:32 +0000

Living in a country with taxpayer-funded public health care, one of the comments that you will often hear is that all that any private company is ever concerned about is profits over and above service to patients. Hence, private insurers would rather cut costs rather than care for patients, and the government will provide the compassion and care that patients need from the dollars of taxpayers. What the proponents of the public health system forget is that a governments primary concern is with power.

But it does raise a question: Why wouldn’t private medical insurers be equally insistent on supplying euthanasia and abortion services as opposed to real health care that looks after the well-being of a patient? After all, it is a lot cheaper to prescribe a lethal cocktail of drugs for someone with an illness that will leave them with serious long term damage than it is to fight the disease, or provide the long term care that they might need, and in the case of a baby who is not developing properly in the womb, abortion, or infanticide is cheaper than the long term care that child will need. Why would a private health insurer put life above profits? Why would a government put life above power?

Both systems are inherently problematic in a world that has forgotten Christ, and has therefore forgotten the value of human life.

By: momof11

momof11 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:20:47 +0000

The Auto insurance that is mandated for drivers is liability insurance, which offers protection to other drivers from your actions. No one is mandated to buy protection coverage for their own vehicle unless it has a lien against it and then it is protecting the holder of the lien from your action. There is a difference.

It used to be people paid out of pocket for most medical expenses…office visits, etc..and had hospitalization insurance for the big things if they had any insurance at all. This is a complicated issue and I don’t think anyone has the answer. But follow the money trail. Who will be paying, and who will really be benefiting? How many people are truly unable to get medical care in todays system. How many of the uninsured are uninsured by choice? How many charitable hospitals will lose donations when the taxes rise and the government lowers the charitable deduction rate? What level of care is a right?

I’m getting weary of the whole thing. Tired of hearing about it, reading about it and thinking about it. Imagine others are too. Is this how totalitarian regimes take control without a fight? ARRGGHH!

By: Mary Kochan

Mary Kochan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:37:01 +0000

Requiring everyone to buy health insurance on the open market like we now do with car insurance would not result in government control anymore than there is government control over your car insurance. And of course it could be dome by the states instead of the fed. I understand that you don’t think it should be mandatory — everyone think that until he or she gets a life-threatening illness that he or she cannot afford treatment for. You don’t find that people just say, “Oh dummy me, I should have had health insurance. Oh, well, I guess I am just going to have to suck it up and die.” Instead, no, they suddenly want treatment whether they can afford it or not. And as a society we have decided that yes, they will be treated. On top of that, our church says that they must be treated. So, now we have a situation where this is the reality. And the question we are dealing with is not whether or not to let people die, but how is all this treatment going to be paid for.

By: SanGabriel

SanGabriel — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:03:03 +0000

There are people right now who do not have health insurance because they can afford to pay out of pocket for their health care. While these people might be few and far between, they do exist. I have a family member who is one of them. Why should my tax money be paying for his family when they can afford to pay out of pocket if they are ill/injured, and they choose NOT to have insurance! While I agree health care is needed for the poor and for many of us who could not afford to pay out of pocket, but I don’t agree it should be universal adn mandatory. I also do not agree with government health care. My Aunt is from Holland, and while she can tell me many stories of how health care in her country is very beneficial for most, it is also very deadly for others. Her family has recently been discussing the fate of her mother…should her life be ended by euthanasia or should she be allowed to die naturally ( after all she is ‘suffering’, has dementia, and really doesn’t know anything going on around her)?? It’s heartbreaking to even think this is an option. I just pray the US healthcare system NEVER gets to this point.

By: c-kingsley

c-kingsley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:02:41 +0000

If you want the government to have the power to force people to buy some product, you can change the constitution to grant them the power. I realize it’s out of fashion these days to care about limits on the King’s powers, but that would be the way to do it according to the law.

There is some difference between this mandate and car insurance — for one, no one forces you to drive. Second, that is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. States have more powers than the federal government. (Since the states created the federal government, and granted to it some of their powers.)

Charity is the job of Christians, not the government. I heard some statistic about the surprisingly high percentage of hospitals and clinics that are still run by Catholic orders. This is health care. Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.

If you allow the federal government to control health insurance there will be no end of politics in it. The question of how developed a premature baby must be before he is worth treating should not even be discussed by politicians. If you are free to choose to buy health insurance or not, or which company to buy it from, what are all the unemployed lobbyists to do?

I tell you, if I’m forced to pay for your health care, I’ll start sticking my nose in the way you live. Sorry, can’t have that dessert. Can’t ride that motorcycle. No more bungee jumping or ATVs. And YOUR grandmother is too old for that expensive surgery, but MINE is not. (Only a corrupt system would do something like that. Good thing there’s no corruption in our system.)

The government doesn’t have the authority, and it will be a horrible disaster, no matter what the laws look like. Other than that, it will be great.

By: Mary Kochan

Mary Kochan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:50:07 +0000

I disagree that you should not be forced to buy health insurance. If we could let people who did not have insurance only have the medical care they were able to afford or that someone donated to them in charity and anything beyond that we just said “tough luck” — then fine, you don’t HAVE to get insurance. But that isn’t how it works. If you don’t have insurance, our society says you still have to get care. So somebody has to pay for it. We can’t just let the uninsured not get treated the way we don’t let uninsured motorists drive. If everybody HAD to drive, we would make everybody get car insurance, right. So how is this different?

By: c-kingsley

c-kingsley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:39:09 +0000

“… is totally unacceptable from a pro-life perspective.”

Not to mention flatly ILLEGAL from a constitutional perspective. Congress does not possess the authority to demand that you buy health insurance of any kind at all. This would be a new usurpation of power.