Reasonable arguments against current health care legislation (1 Viewer)

Hi everyone,

I'm new to these forums and am very active in following current events and I have developed a pretty solid political philosophy that I believe makes sense. I enjoy debate and hope that I can participate in some enlightening discussions on these boards.

I have come to oppose current health care reform as it is being proposed by the Obama Administration. I believe our health care system desperately needs reform, yet what is being proposed by the Democrats (let alone the final legislation after all the compromise and lobbyist influence) is completely unaffordable, poorly considered, and actually perpetuates a broken medical system by giving increasing power to health insurance companies (through the mandate) and the pharmaceutical industry while not actually addresses the fundamental problems in the system. I will lay out my argument against the health care legislation in the following few paragraphs. I would love to hear a rebuttal of my views.

First, the fiscal argument. Ever since Lyndon Johnson started Medicare and Medicaid over forty years ago, we have seen increasing government controlled and managed medical care in this country. And we have seen the costs skyrocket to where Medicare is currently a nearly Forty Trillion dollar unfunded liability as baby boomers start to retire and an unprecedented strain is placed on the system. Virtually everyone knows that the government cannot keep its commitments too many years down the line and Medicare is insolvent. Along with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the primary reasons for our deficits and skyrocketing national debt. Yet, the argument at the outset of this debate was for Universal Coverage (or Medicare for all) and we are constantly reminded of the vast number of uninsured Americans and how it is the governments responsibility to provide for them. But nobody I have seen on the liberal/progressive side have really addressed the problem of how can we fund these new commitments? There is not even lip service paid to this critical element of how our insolvent government can keep its commitments to the elderly currently on Medicare AND cover so many new people. Obama even made the outlandish claim early on that this new public option (for which he was advocating at the time) and health care reform would not add to the deficit because they would cover it by streamlining the agencies and clearing up inefficiencies within the current system and not only that, but he would actually reduce the deficit over the course of his administration. People hear talk like this given the governments track record, plus the 3.8 Trillion dollar budget projected for this year, and Obama loses all credibility. You don't have to be a teabagger to realize what a load of bull**** that is.

So, I would like to ask any liberals reading this thread: What is the more ethical and compassionate option for our government at this point, to promise people and make claims that they can deliver goods and services that they really can't and sucker people into an insolvent system that will eventually quit working due to fiscal reality setting in leaving people TRULY out of luck, or coming clean with people and cutting back on spending and transitioning people towards private savings accounts or other non-government alternatives while striving to take care of those truly dependent on the system? It seems an easy choice to me, yet when I hear the liberals taking the moral high ground it really pisses me off because I can see that those who truly believe that our Federal Government can follow through on its commitments will be in the worst shape when that illusion is shattered.

As you all surely know, we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and we as a nation are going to have to make some tough choices. Despite what is heard by so many high profile Keynesian economists, we cannot spend our way out of this problem. Our government is completely bankrupt. Using outdated 1930s models to deal with a new century problem is beyond stupid. We have to cut back spending drastically to restore confidence in the Dollar and our very system of government. We need to start producing things again and build up our economy from a solid foundation, rather than another Fed created speculative bubble. Far from a recovery, current administration policies are seriously dangerous, threatening hyperinflation, and strengthening China's leverage over us. If the world rejects the dollar as the reserve standard, it will set off a chain of events that will lead to the collapse of our currency and threaten social and political chaos here at home. We need to come to grips with our situation and the things that lead us to this point. We HAVE to cut spending and balance the budget. All our efforts should be to strengthen the dollar and restore confidence in the system by cutting all extraneous wasteful spending. If we don't, the ramifications could be drastic.

One of the main reasons I can no longer support Obama is his clueless attitude towards these serious matters. I still cannot believe that he took office right after the worst collapse in generations, with unemployment through the roof, and spent his first year harping about a new, expensive entitlement program. Talk about being oblivious to reality! So, to all those that support this proposal, could you please explain to me why this makes sense and how we can afford it? We need to be coming clean about the insolvency of Medicare, not claiming we can take care of millions more!

The second reason why I reject this current legislation is that it perpetuates a system that is broken rather than reforming it fundamentally. The reason people buy this comes down to an epidemic and profound ignorance by the average citizen of even the most basic fundamentals of economics. If you ask most people what the number one problem is with health care today they would say its the cost. And they would likely be right. But we have to ask why have health care costs risen so dramatically over the past forty years. The reason is the rejection of competition and a market mechanism for setting prices and a wholesale embrace of a Third Party payer system (whether it be the government or the insurance companies). This means that people don't care what something costs, because they are not paying. Therefore, people are giving up their ability as consumers to practice discernment and take proactive steps to managing their own health care costs, yet they have become at the mercy of powerful Insurance companies or inefficient government bureaucracies who control their destiny. What happens is that because of a third payer system, the costs rise so dramatically that before you know it, nobody can afford to pay out of pocket for medical expenses even if they wanted to because the market has been so distorted. Therefore, people are forced to endure sub standard care or abuse at the hands of insurance companies. What we need is to encourage the maximum number of people to spend money out of pocket for most of their medical needs. The government can encourage this through tax incentives, health savings accounts, and other proposals. Then competition and the market mechanism will lower prices dramatically and the quality of care will shoot through the roof. As support for this point, consider that cosmetic surgery, lasik eye surgery, and cosmetic dental procedures, have continually fallen in price and the quality improved over the last few decades. Imagine that, the only areas in medicine still operating as a free market have bucked the trend of rising costs and the quality has improved. Just like computers and cell phones and HDTVs are affordable for nearly everyone due to competition and the market mechanism, so too will health care become affordable for nearly all Americans. Medical insurance will still be needed of course but it will once again become needed only for catastrophic and unexpected illness (heart attack, stroke, etc). And in this arena we would open up competition, allowing people to purchase insurance apart from their employer, across state lines, etc. Basically, health insurance will become like car insurance is now. If you are in an accident, insurance will pay. But you pay out of pocket for oil changes, tune ups, etc. This essentially was how health care was structured a few decades ago, when we really DID have the best health care in the world. Why not use what worked in the past?

My third and final point is that even though our media is portraying this debate in a different light, this legislation absolutely will strengthen the power of Insurance companies, the Pharmaceutical lobby, and will amount to an attack on medical privacy. The mandate turns those who have made a conscious decision to not buy health insurance into unwilling customers of Aetna and their ilk. Even if it were theoretically possible for government to propose and enact meaningful reform that would serve the interests of the people, we live in the real world, were all legislation gets devoured by lobbyists and so many compromises are made that it always ends up serving the interests of those with the most political clout first and foremost.

The privacy argument comes down to the proposed electronic medical records system. Do you feel comfortable knowing that a drug company could gain access to your medical records and specifically market you a drug based on your medical history? What about Vaccines? I am absolutely uncomfortable with the idea that the government can be used to generate hysteria about ANY disease and mandate (or even strongly encourage) the entire population to get a vaccine, as happened in the recent Swine Flu fiasco. Maybe its just me, but I prefer decisions like this to be left to me and my doctor. Doesn't the likelihood of abuse in this system give you pause? Why must we settle on ANY health care bill (which seems to be the sentiment at the moment). Obama is focusing on a very narrow and short sighted political victory and his own reelection campaign in 2012, not on the long term good of the country.

In conclusion, I get so discouraged listening to the news these days. I feel my views are not being represented. I have not seen most of the views I expressed here even acknowledged by the liberals promoting this bill. So I would really like to hear any of the liberals on this forum address my points and tell me where I go wrong in my assessment. I hope this post sparks some serious debate on this critical issue. Thanks for putting up with my rather lengthy post.

You might consider jumping into the other H.C. thread ("How do citizens who..."). Many of your points come right out of the Cato institute and are misguided, I.M.O. but since they are being discussed in the other thread, I won't just repeat myself.

Hi Cassandra,

I would be happy to post on the other thread. However, I would much rather that some of you respond to my specific points rather than me becoming engaged in an ongoing discussion. I'm sure some of my points have been raised elsewhere in the forum, but since its a large forum, I feel confident that we can have two threads that cover similar topics. One of the reasons I like to post on boards like this is to lay out my argument and hear members show me where I go wrong in my analysis. Its hard to do that when jumping on a thread which has been going on for a while. I am happy to have a short discussion and then let this thread die. I really would like you or another member to lay out your arguments against what I said.

As to your suggestion that my arguments are similar to the Cato institute, I don't know whether you are suggesting that is bad or good. My second point relies on an understanding of free market economics and its ability to lower costs and raise quality. In that instance you could say that this is similar to what the Cato Institute would say. But my understanding of economics is based on my own research and studies rather than just taking an argument that the Cato Institute proposed and passing it off as my own.

However, my first and third points, are not dependent on free market economics but are just an objective evaluation of the facts. There is absolutely no way we can afford for the government to cover more people and we have to come clean about that fact. The numbers just don't add up. As far as the privacy argument, you could make the claim that its not important whether people gain access to your medical records or use the government to promote "health emergencies" and scare everybody like with the Swine Flu "epidemic". Thats not how I feel and many people are very worried about the level of abuse a system like this could be subjected to.

Would anybody care to take a stab at debating these issues that I have raised? Since this thread is already created perhaps it could serve as a challenge for all Obamacare proponents to defend their cause against someone who is opposed to the current legislation.

I'm bumping my own thread here because it seems that nobody wants to respond. I KNOW there are people here who support Obama and defend his plan for health care reform. Why not defend his legislation? What are you afraid of? I am not posting this to be confrontational, but I really want to know how the liberals would respond to my concerns. I haven't heard them addressed by the talking heads. Come on. I guess if nobody cares to take the challenge of answering my points, I can feel confident that I am on the right side of this issue, since none of you can dispute what I am saying. This forum is called Debatepolitics.com. I am trying to start a debate with the liberals who support Obama. Have the courage of your convictions and defend your positions. I would be sorely disappointed if, on a forum seemingly designed for intellectual debate and discussion, I could not get any reaction to my threads and a seeming disinterest in having a real debate. Perhaps I could take my political views and opinions elsewhere, somewhere where the participants are more open and vocal. I hope I'm wrong.