Reconsidering the Health Care Law

Posted Friday, February 4, 2011, at 8:07 AM

An effort to repeal the health care law failed in a Senate vote, but a second ruling that the measure is unconstitutional sent the signal last week that something will have to give. We cannot preserve this law which costs too much, expands government too far, and places too much unnecessary strain on employers in our American economy.

In the past year, the health care law has been both attacked and defended as a tax measure, which administration officials agree that it both is and is not. Small businesses have wondered that this law can promise health insurance for all, but cause them to drop insurance coverage for their workers. And Americans have watched the U.S. court system closely as it attempts to stop the federal government from penalizing them for choosing to not engage in the economic activity of purchasing an insurance plan.

It is apparent that the premise and the approach of the health care law were flawed, which is why we are now wrestling in Congress with this imperfect product. By limiting choices in the private market, adding costs and using the tax code for enforcement, the federal government cannot create a system of health care that coexists with a free society and free markets.

By reforming the law, however, I think we can create a free market system which emphasizes access, cost-effectiveness and fairness. We can promote affordable private insurance and prescription drugs, expand coverage, and keep our status as the world's leading innovator in new health care strategies and technologies.

How do we accomplish this? There are some things we must have, and some things we must not have. First, instead of an individual mandate to carry health insurance through heavily-subsidized government-controlled policies, we should have a system of truly competitive insurance which is flexible, portable and fair. Part of the approach should be incentives for regular checkups and preventative medicine -- practices that detect problems early when they are most treatable (saving the patient's health and saving the public's money on expensive, less-effective late stage treatments). The fairness in private insurance comes from reasonable requirements for policies to cover the dependents of their customers up to a certain age, to write policies for individuals even if they have pre-existing conditions, and to maintain coverage even if their customers change jobs, move to a new state, or retire early.

Second, instead of providing special deals to boost profits in the name-brand pharmaceutical industry, our health care system should promote competition and generic alternatives to costly treatments. The approval of a generic drug should not take longer at FDA than the approval of the original name-brand product years before, and patent protections should not be extended simply because the pill is a different shape or color. Even more important, where the health law encourages Medicare Part D beneficiaries to buy name-brands instead of generics in order to get their drug costs covered, we should instead have incentives for Americans who conscientiously attempt to keep their drug costs down, just as they would if they paying were the full cost for their own medicines.

Finally, in order to assure future generations of American retirees have access to health care, we must prevent fiscal shortfalls in the Medicare program without reducing benefits. Accomplishing savings this way will not be easy, but we must address the impending crisis in Medicare which could leave millions of future American seniors without adequate insurance when they will need it most.

With these outcomes in mind, Congress should start making commonsense changes today to a health care law that has broken trust with the American people and will not pass the tests applied to it in U.S. courts of law.

Comments

View 17 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on dexterstatesman.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

"I think we can create a free market system which emphasizes access, cost-effectiveness and fairness". A "free market system" is the key here. We DONOT want the federal government running the health care system. Repeal of the "Obamacare" health plan was passed by the House. Unfortunately, Democratic Senators forgot they were representing the states. Twenty seven states have joined in the lawsuit against the health care bill.

-- Posted by swift on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:20 AM
Let's let big business run everything, they can be trusted. Remember Madow?

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 1:47 PM
Let's let Big Government run everything, they can be trusted. Remember the Soviet Union?

http://www.askheritage.org/what-did-reagan-think-of-socialized-medicine/?utm_sou...

-- Posted by swift on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 10:49 AM
Swift,

Did Reagan cut that record against socialized health care before or after closing state-run hospitals for the mentally ill in California? I will tell you. After. In 1967 Reagan signed and passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. It was designed to cut the budget in California, but only resulted in seriously mentally ill patients having nowhere to go.

The reason I bring this up is simple. I cannot tolerate this canned Tea Party gimmick of connecting everything to Stalin. The comments you made by Reagan were recorded in 1961. They are completely irrelevant and only show that Reagan was another soldier in the ridiculous war against the Communist threat that never came to fruition. In other words, if you are able to see past these scare tactics, you'll see the real results of a Reagan health policy.

What's more, another Republican had a great deal to do with the current system. That would be President Nixon. He said, "All the incentives are towards less medial care...because the less care they give them the more money they make."

The problem with the conservative fear campaign against health care reform is that it is simply a relic of the political past. Again, I have posted numerous times a story featuring Republican from the Bush administration discussing the problems our current health care system causes our economy.

Instead of fear-mongering about socialism and death panels and other such nonsense, how about creating a legitimate counter-plan that insures that our citizens do not have to go without health care simply because they cannot afford it.

Why is this not the issue, Swift? Instead of slamming the Democrats without any factual basis, how about citing your plan that is better. I can assure you, however, that our current system need not remain in place. If you think it does, just talk to one of the millions of uninsured Americans who go without basic health care year in and year out. If you are so crass as to not care for their well-being, you are simply out of touch.

Let me give you a place to start. Perhaps we should stop giving tax breaks to the mega-wealthy and their oil companies (because they already pay for their own private insurance anyway out of their ridiculous profits) and start funneling that money towards people like students, the poor, and the disadvantaged. I firmly believe that our country is only as strong as those weakest members. Further, I feel that any religious person would believe the same. It is time we start turning out attention to those who need, and not those who have more than enough. No one is asking anything outside of the rich paying their fair share of taxes. No more pork. No more tax cuts to the rich. No more oppression of the middle-class by the rich. Tax rates for the rich have been as high as 70% and 90% in the past under Republican presidents. I have stated this before.

Please, explain to me how your political comrades plan on helping America move forward, rather than backwards.

Source (from tapes) can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q

-- Posted by Actually on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 3:56 PM
No problem, Actually!

First, let's deal with health care. We already know that at least one part of the "Obamacare" health care bill is unconstitutional; that of mandates. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to tell Americans they must buy anything. Twenty-six states have filed lawsuits against the national health care bill, and a few, including Missouri have allowed their voters to vote for or against the plan. So "Obamacare" is virtually dead. In fact, the House is expected to vote next week on cutting funding for it.

Conservatives do have a plan on reforming our health care. http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

In fact, the GOP had a plan as early as June 16, 2009. The Democratic controlled Congress would not even pay attention to the GOP's proposal. The Democratic Party's definition of compromise is "our way or the highway". http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-16/politics/gop.health.care_1_health-insurance-h...

Secondly, you mention taxes. However, most of what you say sounds like the same old class envy cliches: "no more tax cuts for the rich", "rich paying their fair share of taxes", "funneling money" (redistribution of wealth). Do you know who said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accordi...

The religious left loves to misinterpret the cited Scripture references in above article. I agree tat as Christians we are to be concerned for the needs of those who are in poverty or who are suffering from the consequences of disability. But it is not the responsibility of the government to provide social welfare or entitlement programs. It is the responsibility of the Church and Christians as individuals. You will read in Acts 6 where the early church chose seven deacons to oversee charity for the widows. http://www.bbnradio.org/wcm4/bbnmedia/tabid/690/Default.aspx

James, in his Epistle, Chapter 1:27 says that, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." He goes on in Chapter 2 to explain how Christians are to care for the poor. Nowhere in Scripture do we find reliance on government for such responsibility.

-- Posted by swift on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 3:55 PM
Actually, I did go to your posted link. Liberal spin!

-- Posted by swift on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 3:58 PM
Actually, you're the lone sane poster in this political winderness.

Swift, you lose again, and your 'links' are completely ignored by most educated readers.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 8:09 AM
wilderness.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 12:23 PM
Swift, how are Richard Nixon's own words "liberal spin?"

As far as the Bible goes, What do you think about this verse from Acts chapter 2?

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Further, what does Marx have to do with any of this? Are you aware of the fact that Marx was not a proponent of his revolution taking place in China or Russia? He thought the revolution would take place among middle-class workers in Britain or Germany. The idea behind Marxism is that those who do the most work should make more money for their efforts. Not that owners should make everything on the backs of those working. What's more, if we look at the Bible, why should we turn a blind eye on the suffering of those in need? Jesus would not have done so. I find the continued and very old Republican fear of Communism/Marxism/Socialism to be very saddening. Historically, the persecution of such beliefs is deeply tied to racism and bigotry. I don't believe that has changed one iota.

As far as the Republican efforts for health care reform go...you're misunderstanding something. Our current system is not working. Continued allowance of the private sector to take advantage of those unable to afford health insurance does not answer the question. The question is how do we insure those who cannot afford insurance?

Here is your party's plan:

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

This all sounds great, but this all adds up to the same problem. Let the private sector dictate prices, and too bad if the poor and working class who cannot afford coverage.

I see no way for the middle-class to gain access to health care in this plan.

As far as taxes go, Swift. Let me give you a brief preview of my upcoming inaugural blog.

Taxes under Obama are lower than they have been since 1950. In fact, they are 13% lower today than they were under Bush in 2008.

Also, let me address your next argument. Unemployment. I have already mentioned that unemployment was over 9% during the second year of the Reagan administration. However, I think it is important that we remember a few things. First of all, Reagan started the practice of shipping jobs overseas for shortsighted economic gains. Reagan as well as Bush, Clinton, and Bush, were all aware of the job deficit that the baby boomer generation. Further, jobs being shipped overseas and the job deficit have only added to the problems that have been created by the explosion of technology and jobs lost to said advances.

So, I ask you, why do conservatives insist on not providing health care for EVERYONE in America? Why do you continue to complain about over-taxation that is not an issue? Why do you avoid the facts about Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower (Eisenhower and Nixon's tax rates, Nixon's health care sham, and Reagan's detrimental policies on employment).

Finally, I hardly call providing accessible health care for all of our citizens reliance on the government. If the private sector cannot offer everyone health care, then the government must step in. Especially when, as I have quoted before, even the Bush administration admitted that the costs of health care were crippling our economy. We aren't talking about the Church taking care of widows here. We are talking about hard-working Americans who pay their fair share of taxes getting access to the health care they deserve. Just like the wealthiest members of this nation should pay taxes, like they deserve. If you think that the wealthy do not find every possible way around paying taxes, you're mad.

One last note, the Tea Party judge that ruled the health care legislation unconstitutional was just that: a Tea Party Judge. Ever heard of judicial activism? He was nominated by Reagan. You know, if you want to talk about spin, you should perhaps listen to the archaic recording of Reagan you have speaking out against socialized medicine.

Though I haven't had a chance to check out the backgrounds of all the judges who have struck down health care reform, I do know that all of the ones I have researched were appointed by Republicans. (Henry Hudson...Bush appointee...Robert Vinson...Reagan).

I find that funny, don't you Swift? Do you like legislation coming from the bench?

I know I don't. Talk about fear of losing your rights, huh? Conservatives should know all about suspending rights, Swift.

Thanks for your support, Dexterite. I will be publishing my first blog on the site in a few days. I hope to discuss taxes, unemployment, and the real concerns of those opposed to health care.

-- Posted by Actually on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 6:29 PM
Welcome to the blogosphere, Actually! It will be a real pleasure to see a true exchange of ideas, instead of the same tired old rhetoric, with Swift posting endless links onto his own blog.

-- Posted by goat lady on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 7:53 PM
Actually, you still don't get it, do you? Acts 2:42-47 is talking about the early church followers of Christ voluntarily, without government intrusion or compulsion, having all things in common for the purpose of spreading the gospel and helping the needy. Again, NO government telling them they had to do it!

Marxism has everything to do with collectivsm, including government control of property, the exchange of goods, education, and healthcare. Hate business, hate those who are rich and envy them, etc. You liberals just don't understand that our basic rights of life (from the moment of conception to natural death), liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which includes property: income, wages, and possessions) come from our Creator, not the government. It is NOT the right of government to take a person's pursuit of happiness and to use it how it thinks best. That is tyranny. The Democratic Party in 1800's believed in the supposed right of slave owners to own slaves (a violation of the right to liberty) and now it believes in the supposed right of a mother to have her unborn baby murdered (a violation of the right to life).

Unemployment went down under Reagan's term in office and went up during Carter's and Obama's.

Goat lady, with all due respect, posting of links is a way of information. It's comparable to writing a treatise or book and giving references for sources of information. The problem is that most liberals are so bound to their own point of view, that they won't check out those sources anyway.

Actually, I look forward to reading your liberal blog.

-- Posted by swift on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 3:53 PM
Actually, here I go again, posting a link:

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp?fromYear=1980&toYear=201...

The unemploymnt rates under Reagan during his two terms in office were:

1981- 7.5 to 8.5

1982- 8.6 to 10.8

1983- 10.4 to 8.3

1984- 8.0 to 7.3

1985- 7.3 to 7.0

1986- 6.7 to 6.6

1987- 6.6 to 5.7

1988- 5.7 to 5.3

Conservatives DON'T "turn a blind eye on the suffering of those in need"! We just don't believe our tax dollars on income and property should be used to finance social programs that DONOT eliminate poverty or suffering. We believe that charity should be free will giving to help those in need through the very capable charity organizations or through our churches.

-- Posted by swift on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 4:37 PM
Haha, Swift. I'm glad you finally see the light. However, you are the one who does not get it. Unemployment was high under Reagan's administration, so he did what to lower it? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lowering taxes and it had everything to do with sending jobs overseas.

I agree with you Swift. People should voluntarily take care of those in need. However, obviously they do not do so. If they did, people would not have to go without medical care, food, shelter, utilities, etc. So, while your pitch for conservative religion is an idealistic one, it is not happening.

I also find it funny how you said unemployment went up under Carter too. It did. However, the first two years of his administration saw a decrease in unemployment. None the less, you still refuse to acknowledge the job deficit, technology, and the shipment of jobs overseas (beginning under Reagan to achieve those unemployment rates you mentioned). You also do not acknowledge the fact that Regan's, like Obama's over 9 percent unemployment rate came in his second year in office. As well as the fact that he was never able to push the rate as low as that of President Clinton.

What about Obama's tax rates? They're lower than Reagan's. Nothing to say about that, Swift?

Also, just so you'll know, unemployment went up during both of the Bush administrations as well. Sadly, the only president who saw a continuous decrease in unemployment rates was Bill Clinton. I bet that stings.

-- Posted by Actually on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 2:42 PM
And, in addition, Reagan RAISED taxed on only ONE group of people...his 1986 tax bill RAISED taxes on those collecting Social Security....LOL. Decreased top rate by 60% and increased taxes on social security recipients. The man had no sense when it came to economics....even Bush senior called it 'Voodoo'...

-- Posted by Wildcat67 on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 4:27 PM
Actually, before I respond to your above comments, I want to respond to what you said earlier.

You said, "I find the continued and very old Republican fear of Communism/Marxism/Socialism to be very saddening. Historically, the persecution of such beliefs is deeply tied to racism and bigotry."

Persecution? Tied to racism and bigotry? In view of the history of Communist human rights violations, including the torture of political dissidents and persecution and slaughter of Christians and members of other religious bodies, your comment is apalling. The blood of millions of Christians martyred by Communist governments cries out. Make this comment to the thousands of Chinese Christians worshipping in "house churches", fearing for their lives. Make that comment to those Christians whose relatives endured religious persecution and martyrdom under Soviet dictatorship. have you ever read "Tortured for Christ" by Richard Wurmbrand or "Tortured for His Faith" by Haralan Popov? I'm currently listening to the reading of the latter book on "Christian Classics" on the Bible Broadcasting Network,

http://www.bbnradio.org/wcm4/english/RadiobrBroadcast/Programs/ProgramSchedulean...

Now for your latter post:

1. You don't say how Reagan sent our jobs overseas. With that in mind, I'm opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, and most favored nation trade status for communist China. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have supported all three. I have called Emerson's office expressing my opposition to them. Unfortunately, union demands have given companies the desire for cheaper labor overseas. No excuse, but it happens!

2. I checked for information via the internet to find out how conservative Christian churches (Evangelicals for example) give as compared to charitable giving from liberal ones. Here's what I found out: According to

http://christianpf.com/charitable-giving-stats-the-u-s-shines/

"Americans give $300 billion to charities each year.

There are 973,354 public charities in the US who collect more than $1.3 trillion dollars -- more than the US government collects in taxes!

The wealthiest 10% of Americans account for 25% of all charitable giving.When calculated as a percentage of income the poorest people become the most charitable.

Those who earn less than $20,000 become twice as charitable as those who earn $100,000 even though they donate one fourth as much.

Conservatives are more likely to give than Liberals.

Religious people give more to secular causes than secular people do."

So, while conservative Christians do give, those who make less seem to give more. But, there are some conservative organizations run by rich philanthropists. http://old.mediatransparency.org/funders.php

3. I acknowledge the facts based on the unemployment chart's figures which I posted. Anyone can check it out.

4. As for Obama's tax rate vs Reagan's: i went to the following sites to check out your assertion:

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/08/kennedy-reagan-v-bush-obama

Apparently, it depends on how you look at the figures. For all the spending Obama's economic plan requires, there will have to be an increase in taxation. The following site shows just how much more Obama plans to spend vs what the spending was during Bush's term. Deficit spending is wrong under any administration.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dang...

-- Posted by swift on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 4:38 PM
Swift, you need to learn what constitutes a viable source and what does not. It appears that you, like most conservatives do not even know the difference between real journalism and Internet blogging. I'm not surprised by this as your lot worship Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Savage, Jones, and any other money-grabbing entertainer with a microphone and no legitimate sources. All of your information is slanted severely to the right. I try to post objective, real facts. I have a had time making arguments against people who blog and do not even post their sources. None the less, I will make one point about some of the "facts" you posted. Conservatives probably do make more charitable donations on the books than liberals. Why? To get out of paying taxes. That's an easy one. So you might not be familiar with the big money game. That's fine. I ask you to show me where the money to all of these charities goes, and if they are so helpful then why are so many middle-class citizens still struggling? I'll tell you one thing, it isn't because of taxes. As far as the links you posted about taxes...I'm not sure what you're saying. One one hand you have a chart that shows historic tax rates. On the other, you have a former Reagan staffer explaining away any fault on the part of Reagan for the current state of economic affairs. What are you getting at? Posting links really isn't an argument, so you'll have to be more clear as to what you are trying to say. I'd also like to mention that all of these sites are almost two years old. Can you not find any legitimate recent sources that criticize Obama factually and not ideologically? I also fail to follow your logic against the government spending money. I guess that you aren't familiar with Roosevelt and the Great Depression. Fair enough. How will the conservative economic agenda stimulate the economy? Please, explain to me. And yes, I do find your tired rhetoric heavily laden with racism and bigotry. Perhaps if you knew your history, you would understand that statement. You see, I'm not defending the actions of the Chinese government. However, I can speak for the actions of the right-wing conservative anti-communists living today and in our recent past. I do not expect you to even know about what I'm alluding to, and I doubt you would even understand or agree, so I won't waste my time explaining such issues to you. However, perhaps you should educate yourself a little more with legitimate history and not conservative social media outlets.

Please, if you want to learn any history, watch my upcoming blogs. I will try my best to show you the way, Swift.

-- Posted by Actually on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 9:07 PM
Actually, I' not racist and not bigoted! I am against Obama's agenda; not his race! I support and observe Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday like most conservatives do. I have been anti-racist ALL my life because of the way I was raised. You liberals LOVE to play the stupid race card, but it will not work! I look forward to far left blog, and I won't forget your sympathy for Communists.

By the way, I'm not a Republican; I'm a conservative who generally votes for Republicans, Constitution Party, and independent candidates. I've been a member of the Prohibition Party, but it has too many liberals in it. LOL

-- Posted by swift on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 10:21 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register