HOW MUCH IS A HUMAN BEING WORTH?
My latest column at American Issues Project is up where I write about health care rationing.
A sample:
If one were to calculate the value of all the minerals and chemicals found in the human body, we’d be worth about $4.50 (add $3.50 for the 18 square feet of skin that holds it all together).
A paltry sum, to be sure. But there’s another way to calculate the worth of a human being. If one were to total up the value of all of our organs and other salable elements - what they’d fetch on the open market - our bodies would be worth considerably more. Our bone marrow alone would fetch $23 million. Our DNA would be worth a cool $9.7 million.
Our organs are pretty valuable too. Need a little extra cash? Selling your lung would net you a fast $116,000. Losing your heart would gain you $57,000.
Add it all up and you’d be quite a catch as a prospective mate. There’s $45 million in you just waiting to be mined, bottled, and sold, which is a nice number but probably won’t give you much comfort if you actually try to cash in while you’re still alive.
Then there’s another way to determine how much a human being is worth, coming soon to a hospital near you — the government way. Not surprisingly, the way the government will figure how much someone is worth is not by figuring the value of your limbs, or organs, or what Uncle Sam could get if they mined the potassium out of your carcass. They won’t calculate how much you have contributed to society in the past or how much you might contribute in the future.
And you can bet they won’t try to calculate how much you’re worth to you spouse, your kids, your family, your friends, or your community.
The government will determine how much a human being is worth by calculating how much of a drain on health care resources they will be.
Oh, but don’t worry. It will all be couched in nice, soothing language like “quality adjusted life years” or “comparative effectiveness research.” Anything but what it is; the government deciding which of us gets life saving or life extending treatment and which of us fails the tests.
Read this Eric Erickson article at Red State. These people are dead serious. I’m not sure about the cite from the bill being an accurate representation of what it is meant to be, but it matters little when creepy crawlers like Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and “Utilitarian” philosopher Peter Singer are all inferring that their idea of rationing is determining if someone’s life is “worth it” when deciding whether to give life saving treatment.
There are monetary considerations (rationing) already used by insurance companies to determine some care options. But I’d rather have some green eyeshade guy working in the private sector worried about me or my family suing the crap out of his company making that choice rather than a “bureaucrat with a slide rule.”
As always, please read the whole thing.
“There are monetary considerations (rationing) already used by insurance companies to determine some care options. But I’d rather have some green eyeshade guy working in the private sector worried about me or my family suing the crap out of his company making that choice rather than a “bureaucrat with a slide rule.””
(a) You can sue the government. People do it all the time.
(b) The insurance company man is only concerned with increasing profit for the company, government also has, at least in concept, the well being of citizens as a factor to consider.
(c) Who uses slide rules?
Comment by Drongo — 7/21/2009 @ 11:11 am
Drongo - just fyi - I don’t want either making my health care decisions. I want those decisions to be a cooperative effort between ME and my own personal DOCTOR. I hate hospitals and I hate doctors and at age 67, I have a feeling that Obamacare will give my needs really short shrift! I’m not ready to pack up my toys and go away, Drongo. I have many more things to do in my life! Like argue with you.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 7/21/2009 @ 11:54 am
I, too, trust “the insurance man” more. In addition to suing him, I can shame him, and he will have no defenders in the public arena. If need be, I can use my sad and compelling story to tar and feather his for-profit enterprise until every jury in the country that hears a case involving said enterprise votes guilty. Ever try shaming a politician? Aside from the fact that most have no shame, they also have a big-government media apparatus that will defend the government and destroy me (or my mother or grandfather or whomever is saying “they’re killing me”) in order to protect their government overlords. Yes, “the insurance man” has something to lose. The government man does not.
Comment by Anon — 7/21/2009 @ 11:57 am
Which politician is going to go on record as stating that it is OK to pull the plug on Grandma? Politicians may have no shame, but they are very easy to get caught up in stupid situations in which they can never come out on the side of logic.
A nice example is a town near me that has a law stating that cross dressing is $10 fine. This law was originally passed to keep women from wearing pants. While no one would even think about enforcing this law in this day and age, no politician is willing to publicly state that he sees nothing wrong with cross dressing.
You don’t shame the politician, you just set it up so that every time he has to mention health care someone is there to ask “Is this another ‘kill Grandma’ cost cutting messure, or would you like to add 6 year old little kids to that as well?”. It is damn hard to run for re-election under that banner.
Comment by KenGirard — 7/21/2009 @ 12:19 pm
My wife is a cancer survivor, she had latter 3rd stage breast cancer at 27, so we have been dealing with insurance companies for the last 10 years. It can be frustrating at times to get paid for various procedures but we found for the most part they can be reasoned with - a procedure they say they will not cover they often can be convinced to cover if the doctors support you. For example we wanted testing done to see if my wife had a genetic disposition toward breast cancer. If she did we would perform more surgeries to remove those parts of her body where the cancer was more likely to appear. The procedure cost about $4,000 but after spending time on the phone, having all three of our doctors involved and writing our own letters they finally agreed to pay, even after we had paid out of our pocket.
If we have a bureaucrat drone making these decisions you can forget about something like this. They will robotically open their 1000 page manual, go to Point 4, section 7, sub-subsection 4f, paragraph 45 where it says, “No genetic testing for 3rd stage breast cancer when patient is under 19 years old” and that will be the end of it. No force on this earth, short of a congressional mandate, will allow for them to pay for this procedure.
Comment by Alarm1201 — 7/21/2009 @ 1:12 pm
Alarm1201 said:
Wait, so what you’re saying is that you’d rather spend hours on the phone, get three different doctors involved with trying to persuade, then pay out of your own pocket, write a bunch of letters, then hope that the company is convinced to pay out. You’d rather do all that, then worry about some fictitious nonsense scenario with a “bureaucrat drone”. Your logic confuses me.
Private insurance is a horrible way to go about paying for medical treatment. Especially employer sponsored insurance. Absolutely horrible. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. People seem to think that there’s an insurance “market”. There isn’t. All insurance companies use the dame database to set rates and drive down physician compensation.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/21/2009 @ 2:33 pm
“Wait, so what you’re saying is that you’d rather spend hours on the phone…”
Yes. I did not say “hours on the phone” I said “time on the phone”.
But more important you missed my point. Insurance companies do and the government will ration care. The difference its that the insurance companies are not locked into formulas, they have them but they can often be persuaded to change if your case is reasonable and you are willing to spend some time (not hours, time) to make your case with the doctors support. With the government you will not be able to make your case unless you can put political pressure on them, which most people cannot do. However, most people do have the ability and time to make a few phone calls, and write a letter or two.
Private insurance may be horrible but its far better then government will be and I’ve dealt with both. And by the way, to let you in on a little secrete: the government also has a database to set rates that drives down physician compensation.
Comment by Alarm1201 — 7/21/2009 @ 3:03 pm
Sorry. I interjected my own personal experience. Apologies.
Just because private insurance companies are motivated by profit doesn’t mean that they’ll give a shit if you complain. In fact, the opposite is almost always true because the insurance is employer sponsored.
Employer based health care is quite possibly the worst conceivable way of managing health care costs ever. It’s an assault on the American Dream.
And while I’m on it, why, WHY should you need to go through all that bullshit just to get a TEST for genetic predisposition? Why wouldn’t that be preventive maintenance? What is the reasoning behind you going through all of that just to get the test? Why do you need to write letters, involve three different doctors, make calls, and basically BEG some company to let you test your loved one for cancer? That’s absurd, and yet you make it sound like you’re happy to be a part of the system.
That’s awesome for you, I guess. The current system, with a great deal of effort on your part, works great for you. Congratulations.
For a great deal of the rest of us, the private health insurance industry is the very definition of nightmare.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/21/2009 @ 4:09 pm
“I want those decisions to be a cooperative effort between ME and my own personal DOCTOR.”
I don’t understand. What is stopping you having private heath insurance?
Comment by Drongo — 7/21/2009 @ 4:54 pm
“I, too, trust “the insurance man” more.”
Well then, why not have private insurance?
Comment by Drongo — 7/21/2009 @ 4:55 pm
one thing all you pro private insurance commentators seem to be forgetting is 1.the amount of money lost to the private industry through commercial requirements and inefficiencies (eg advertising, marketting/bribes to doctors, dividends, executive packages etc) and 2. private companies ration medicine and treatments in opaque ways like denying cover for “pre-existing” conditions or pushing people out of hospital quickly.
I live in a country with the evil communistic medicine and rationing has not been a problem, I pay 1.5% of my gross income in tax, my GP decides what treatment I need and I receive it. When I was a student or unemployed it was the same. HOWEVER if I wanted breast implants I would have to get private insurance or pay seperately. All countries with universal healthcare handle it somewhat differently but I haven’t noticed that the standard of living is lower in countries with these systems and grandma does not have the pin pulled on her.
Comment by yoyo — 7/21/2009 @ 5:23 pm
“I don’t want either making my health care decisions. I want those decisions to be a cooperative effort between ME and my own personal DOCTOR.”
And how much are you willing to pay to exercise that freedom? My freedom, your cost is a funny kind of freedom.
Comment by c3 — 7/21/2009 @ 9:54 pm
There are a couple of problems with this article. First, it fails to acknowledge that there are a finite number of dollars and therefore prioritizing care is essential. Second, it fails to recognize that some people desire expensive care that even the doctors know will not produce a positive outcome. Third, it fails to acknowledge that private insurers can drop you from the plan but a government plan cannot.
If you rack up too many charges under your insurance plan, you will be dropped, often due to recision; if you have employer-sponsored care, your employer will be assessed a surcharge (sometimes as much as $1 million for leukemia patients) and told it will persist until the offending–er sick–enrollee is no longer on the plan. So your employer has to decide–are you really worth $1 million dollars? (Since we are talking about human value, here.)
You say you like that you can sure your insurance company; you can, but lawyers will get most of the winnings–if you get any. Under Republican plans, private insurers would not be bound by state laws, which means in most southern states, you can be denied for preexisting conditions and dropped at the will of the insurer. In such situations, you cannot sue. However, don’t you think these lawsuits are going to drive up the cost of healthcare even further? Not only that, if you have cancer, you may die before the lawsuit is resolved. Wouldn’t you rather have treatment, if available?
You may think it is worth $50,000 for the possibility of an extra 2 months of life, but is it worth it if it means a child with leukemia cannot get lifesaving treatment? People should not simply be able to get any treatment *they* think may help, even if there is little evidence that it will help. Medicine is practiced rather irresponsibly in this country, with kids given antibiotics for ear infections that will go away just as quickly on their own and people given antibiotics for viral illnesses.
Under Obama, Medicare has relaxed restrictions on off-label use of cancer drugs. This means that physicians have more flexibility in treating patients with cancer; does this sound like a desire to save money by denying people care?
Cost effectiveness has to be part of any healthcare plan. That is what comparative research is for, in part. Sure, most people like their private insurance plans–until they get seriously ill, get dropped, or find themselves unemployed and uninsured. That is why the majority of Americans support healthcare security offered by a public option.
As someone who grew up without healthcare, I can tell you that no healthcare is much worse than healthcare. Bureaucrats are already making decisions about our healthcare (assuming one has insurance); what difference does it make where they are located? Frankly, I would rather have a bureaucrat that is not out to make a profit than one who is rewarding employees for cutting services to sick people so the CEO can get an extra million or three in his annual bonus.
Comment by CatM — 7/21/2009 @ 11:15 pm
@ Rick:
What did the Erik Erikson article have to do with your article? Yours actually raised a valid point (I disagree, but a valid point), but RedState’s was pure Male Cow Manure.
DNRs, Living Wills, and DPOAHCs have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Euthanasia. The text of the bill he cites in no way whatsoever supports his claims. At all. I assume he has reading comprehension skills on at least the 3rd grade level, so I am only left with the assumption that he knows what he is saying is completely incorrect — what us simple people call “a big fat lie”.
There are legitimate issues in this topic that need to be debated. But parroting outright lies (like your “ignore the plain text of the language, Obama is outlawing private insurance” baloney last week) makes any legitimate issues you raise suspect by association.
I come here because the thinking person’s views from “the Red Side” are rare. I can get paranoid nonsense from a dozen different sources easier. Don’t sink down to their level.
btw — as I said, you raised a legit question. Of course, if you have private insurance now that will cover unlimited treatment regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, then keeping it sounds pretty good. If you don’t have any insurance . . . well, then even assuming that the “new” insurance would only cover half of your Chemo (a purely hypothetical example), that’s half more than you’re going to get covered now. How is that worse?
Your issue only comes up in the scenario where somebody currently has super coverage, then changes to limited coverage. Since the bill DOES NOT MAKE ANYBODY SWITCH, wouldn’t the consequences of such a switch fall under the heading of “personal responsibility for your personal decisions”?
Comment by busboy33 — 7/22/2009 @ 1:38 am
“For a great deal of the rest of us, the private health insurance industry is the very definition of nightmare.”
In this case, speak for yourslef, not “for a great deal of the rest of us.” If this were not an important facet, why would Obam continue to state “If you like your insurance, it will not be affected.”
Because, very simply, I do like my own insurance. I speak for me, and I do not want that realtionship between me and my doctor, set up through my insurance, interrupted. You may believe that the bill in front of Congress does not affect that relationship. I believe otherwise.
With any proposal by Congress, there are unintended consequences. You may trust government - I don’t and I see it everyday - I work within the government. No matter how closealy the examination of cost, there has never been a proposal by the government that was “brought in under cost.” So any cost estimate brought by the government is bunk - the CBO even agress. And if you were to look at any governemnt run health care system in the world, these kind of value judgements are made by bureaucrats all around the worle and the problem is politicians are protected those bureaucrats. You can complain to your MP in Canada and the UK all day long and if you don’t have the money in Canada to go accross the border to the US, you are screwed by that bureaucrat pointing to “Point 4, section 7, sub-subsection 4f, paragraph 45″ for their guidance.
Lastly, if all of these wonderful state run health care systems are so good, why do so many foreigners come to the US for treatment - at their own expense. Seems like a discrepancy to me to emulate a system that forces people to go elsewhere to be treated.
If this is so important, if this is so vital, why is this proposal having such a difficult problem keeping their own party support intact. Do you think a proposal thrown together in four months, which could change the way health care is approached in this country forever, which no one has even read, that has only partisan support is in your best interest?
These are all concerns that I have problems with and rushing this process does none of us any good. So take a moment and next time speak for yourself, and not for “the rest of us.”
Comment by Anonymous — 7/22/2009 @ 5:52 am
How’s this; I trust the federal government exactly as much as I trust private industry.
Your generalization doesn’t hold water. US Citizens go to other countries all the time for various treatments. Likewise people come here. Just because a hospital in the US has some treatment options that a foreign country doesn’t have, does not mean that our health care system is better. It just means that that particular hospital does something better.
Correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, they’re not trying to emulate, they’re trying to create something better in the face of massive corporate pushback via campaign donations and lobbying.
I’ve experienced the hell of private insurance first hand. I wouldn’t wish my experiences on anyone. What’s even more troubling is that my insurance is pretty much the best deal money can buy right now. Not to mention that as my costs have risen, so has my deductible, and the pathetic joke that is called “co-pay”.
Congrats on your system. It’s great that you’re happy with it. I think it sucks, and the fact that we’re even having the discussion pretty much confirms that paying for health care via private insurance is an awful way of doing things.
The people’s support for a public option is overwhelming. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet is a testament to the power and influence of private corporations throwing millions of dollars at congress.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/22/2009 @ 9:56 am
An American who goes overseas for treatment and pays for it out of pocket,can afford insurance. So why go there. The insurance company has refused to pay or a hospital or doctor will not perform that treatment in this country. The entire health care system in this country has turned into nothing more than a wealth redistribution program for a small percentage of people who run it. Every conversation about health care starts and ends with money. If a person has money they get good treatment, if not, maybe no treatment at all. The health care industry has no real competition. Anybody who thinks real competition exists has been drinking the koolaide at the conservative table. The health care industry does what it wants to whom ever it wants for as long as it wants as long as a PROFIT can be made. To all of you who had too much koolaide who think you and your doctor are really making decisions, ha, the bottom line of who ever is paying the bill is the deciding factor. The health care industry needs real competition not more of what we have had for many years now. The government only has the power to compete with this powerful industry. And compete they will. I’m not sure what health care in America will look like in 10 years, almost anything will be an improvement on what we have now.
Comment by Conservosnemesis — 7/22/2009 @ 10:38 am
@Anonymous:
“Because, very simply, I do like my own insurance.”
THEN KEEP IT. Your insurance is specifically grandfathered out of most of the effects of the plan most likely (off the top of my head, pages approx 167-175 of the plan — if that’s not it, do a word search on the text for “grandfather”.
All the people that tell you your insurance is being destroyed . . . have any of them refered you to the plan and where it makes those claims?
Doe your opinion of the plan change if you believe that your insurance isn’t being touched?
Comment by busboy33 — 7/22/2009 @ 11:29 am
@anonymous:
“If this is so important, if this is so vital, why is this proposal having such a difficult problem keeping their own party support intact.”
I thought you didn’t believe the government was competent. Now you think they only act in the best interests of their constituents? I’m going to guess that one of the reasons they are having trouble keeping votes begins with the letter”L” and ends with “obbyists”.
“Do you think a proposal thrown together in four months, which could change the way health care is approached in this country forever, which no one has even read, that has only partisan support is in your best interest?”
If I thought that the legislature was truly focused on nothing more than my personal good . . . no. If I think one party refuses to support anything that a president does, across the board . . . then it looks like they are just playing a game, and “in my best interest” seems to be utterly irrevelant to the debate.
“We’re going to break Obama” in no way equals “please think of the children”.
Comment by busboy33 — 7/22/2009 @ 11:39 am
*apologies for the multiple posts*
Bad cite listed in comment #18. The relevant part is on page 16:
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered healthinsurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first
day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
(page 16, lines 3-20)
Comment by busboy33 — 7/22/2009 @ 11:44 am
Ask me the really pertinent question - Do I think the health care system needs to be reformed? YES! But what I see is a deformation, not a reformation.
You do not trust the private insurance companies. Fine - go get another one. I don’t trust the government - but I don’t have the luxury of getting another one, at least for another 18 months or so. And that won’t happen even then unless your “people’s support for a public option is overwhelming” turns out to be a lie.
You ask a valid question, “Does your opinion of the plan change if you believe that your insurance isn’t being touched?” No because of one basic premise - I do not trust the government and more specifically this administration to tell me the truth. They told us the Stimulus package was about jobs! Any questions?
I am a retired Air Force LTC (Lieutenant Colonel to the civilian readers). The retirement benefits promised me when I enlisted (and officers do indeed enlist) are not the ones I have today. Ask any retired military person you may know or even better yet, go to your nearby VFW and ask the members about government promises made for disabled veterans. Ask them about the VA hospital system. Try it on for size. That is the look and feel of the public option - 20 years from now.
But you have not answered my basic question - What’s the rush? Why does it have to be done NOW? Are you afraid of a few months of real debate? Are you afraid of a few months so people will be able to actually READ the legislation before they are asked to vote on it? Or are you afraid that the “people’s support for a public option” is in fact a lie? Seems like every day that goes by that “overwhelming” support dwindles. And don’t BS me about the years of debate about health care. I’M TALKING ABOUT DEBATING THIS BILL. Even Obama has even admitted he does not know what the bill contains. But he has the “audacity of hope” to stand up in front of the American people and tell us we HAVE to support it. WE HAVE TO! Sorry, I’m not drinking the koolaide.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/22/2009 @ 1:15 pm
Because if it needs to get done, then not doing it doesn’t resolve the issue.
I may have been less than clear, so let me re-phrase what I said above. I don’t believe, for one second, that Republicans want to delay the issue to “fix” it. I believe they want to delay it so that it slowly dies, and the healthcare system does not get reformed. I agree that extended, thoughtful debate would be the best course of action. I don’t see that as an option. I see either try to fix the system now, while there is possibly enough momentum to get something done, or do absolutely nothing at all. If those are my 2 choices, I pick door #1. If you want the system to be reformed, but don’t want anything to happen until the proposal is 100% perfect to everybody concerned . . . then you don’t want the system fixed.
You don’t trust the government. Neither do I. I specifically think the Leglislative Dems are wear-helmets-inside dumb. If that’s a reason not to support healthcare, aren’t you saying the government should do nothing at all? I don’t trust them to manage the military well with their budgets. Guess they shouldn’t pass a military budget. They’re incompetent at maintining ifrastructure. So no more road reapairs or bridge upgrades until we’re sure they won’t muck something up.
No doubt that you got promised (a) and then got (b) with the VA. If you think that relying on the private sector (and specifically private, for-profit insurance companies) is going to avoid that problem, I respectfully disagree. They promise one thing, then deliver another. And they have an incentive (higher profits) to do it, as opposed to just stupidity.
Let me re-phrase the question: Should health care be provided for the uninsured? you can agree or disagree. But if you agree, then “Why the rush?” is answered with “because it won’t happen otherwise”, and you know it.
Comment by busboy33 — 7/22/2009 @ 3:09 pm
“Why the rush?” is answered with “because it won’t happen otherwise”, and you know it.
Short and sweet response to that - Bullshit. You believe what Obama is telling you that the Republicans are the Party of No, then you have drunk far too deep from the bucket of Koolaide - and purple Koolaide at that. I am a Republican and I do not know of a single Republican out there who does not agree that the system needs to be reformed. NOT ONE!!!
But just like the Stimulus bill, the Republicans have not been given a chance to bring anything to the table. The Republicans brought 14 amendments to the Stimulus Bill and not one of them saw the light of day. And the resultant bill? Well, you get my drift.
I want to see health care reformed. I want to see that the uninsured have a path to healthcare coverage. But I do not want to destroy the system in order to do so. And that is what I see going on - “and you know it”.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/22/2009 @ 3:33 pm
“Why the rush?” is answered with “because it won’t happen otherwise”, and you know it.
I have a very short answer for you - CRAP!
First, I am a Republican and I know the health care system needs to be reformed. I also do not know of a single Republican who does not agree with me on that count. I would like to repeat that - NOT ONE!
If I want to buy a candy bar, I go with my gut and take what’s off the shelf that appeals to me at the moment. If I want to buy a car, I take my time and research the options and make sure I am an informed customer before I ever go to the showroom. Why the difference? One dollar versus 20,000 dollars.
I do not want to rush into this reform of the health care system and just take what’s off the shelf. I want time to reflect on the options. I know there is not going to be a 100% solution to the problem but I do not want to plunge head first into the abyss. There is far too much at stake and far too much to be lost - and gained to do this haphazardly!
Obama wants this yesterday becasue his political butt is on the line and he knows he is dead meat if something doesn’t happen. OK, loet someting happen but I would like to ask you something. Do you want a good health care system or do you want something cobbled together, just barely above the mess we have now, just so Obama can crow to the Heavens about how great he is?
Because that is the path we are on right now - and you know it!
Comment by Anonymous — 7/22/2009 @ 5:06 pm
Do you honestly believe that the Republican delay is to work out a working healthcare reform plan? Not -should- it be, but -is- that the purpose?
What is the Republican plan? Where is it? “This plan sucks” isn’t deliberating, its chanting.
Everyone WANTS to reform health care. But most people want it like they want a Mars landing: It would be all neat and stuff, but I’m sure as hell not going to pay for it, and it better not interfere with my vacation, and build the launch pad somewhere else, etc. You know the health care system needs reforminhg. All Republicans do. Then what is your plan to fix it? Aside from “cut taxes” and “fight Socialism”? That doesn’t reform the system . . . that insures that there won’t be reform.
You want to deliberate? Amen. Make a suggestion. Let’s debate. Offer a plan. Offer a goal for the delay. “Let’s get it right” is to me woefully transparent.
Comment by busboy33 — 7/22/2009 @ 8:41 pm
“Let’s get it right” is to me woefully transparent.
Too bad. So now, after all of the compromises that will be made to bring the Blue Dogs into line, you are going to get your “snickers bar” health care program. Obama and company will then crow to the heavens how they have saved America from the forces of evil. And then we will spend the next 20 years trying to fix the resultant 1+ Trillion dollar bandaid of a healthcare system when, by your own admissions, a bandage was needed.
Good luck with that!
Comment by Anonymous — 7/23/2009 @ 5:40 am
1.) I do not now and I have not had healthcare except for what was provided thru my employer and I have not had that for the last 7 years of my life
2.) Blessed as my life is I have not now nor have I had any illness that required any testing
3.) Even with a heart defect that causes a sharp stabbing pain in my chest it only happens once or twice a year and sometimes I doesnt happen at all
4.) I do not want too pay higher taxes for something I do not need
5.) I do not want everyone paying higher taxes for something I will not use.
6.) I have been without healthcare all of my life except for what was provided because of the level of poverty I was raised in and the companies I worked with and even then I’ve only used my company provided health coverage once in the 12 years of my professional life
7.) there have been 3 times in my life that government provided poverty health care was used by me, twice for a broken arm and once for when my eyeball swelled too the size of my eye socket in my skull do too an allergic reaction
I am an un - insured American and I see no point what so ever too have the government make me pay for something I am not useing, do not want, and will not waste money on. So where is my opout section in thier bill, why cant I say “no thanks im too healthy for health insurance and I do not want too pay for it”
Because I am the reason the government wants too provide health care, as well as the countless millions of americans who are also blessed like me.
This extra money will indeed go too Americans and illegal immigrants who are not blessed as many of us are but theres the problem, not all of it.
Comment by Wright — 7/28/2009 @ 9:27 am
@Drongo: “You can sue the government. People do it all the time”
If you can find willing lawyers and judges you can sue anyone for anything at any time, but the government has legislated MANY exemptions and immunities for themselves. Haven’t heard about such exemptions or immunities in the current health care takeover bill, but I’m willin’ to bet they are there.
@OP: “… I’d rather have some green eyeshade guy working in the private sector worried about me or my family suing the crap out of his company making that choice rather than a “bureaucrat with a slide rule.””
… who may be exempted and immune from such lawsuits. Again, I’d be willing to bet they’ll exempt and immunize themselves.
Comment by DoorHold — 7/28/2009 @ 12:58 pm