HCR Passes

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do not have to drive. It is perfectly within my rights not to. No car, no autoi insurance. However, I do have to breathe. Breathing would mean that I'm required by law to purchase health insurance.

Putting aside for a moment questions of practicality and whether you think it would function well or not, would you have the same "I'm forced to buy it" objection if we went to a true universal single payer system, where, instead of subsidizing purchase of health insurance by individuals from private companies, health insurance was paid for entirely by the government, budgeted from tax revenue?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Putting aside for a moment questions of practicality and whether you think it would function well or not, would you have the same "I'm forced to buy it" objection if we went to a true universal single payer system, where, instead of subsidizing purchase of health insurance by individuals from private companies, health insurance was paid for entirely by the government, budgeted from tax revenue?

Considering I think government is too big as it is and my general philosophy that I prefer government keep its hands out of as much as possible, I suppose I would have a problem with it on a philosophical level. As with anyone, my taxes go to support all sorts of things that I do not philosophically support. But because of how you defined the issue, the "I'm forced to buy it" objection goes away and would be, of course, replaced by numerous other objections, which would be more in line with my normal objections to government intrusion into my life and high taxation.

[Alex]

Just a little pre-emption.

Al Sharpton did not call Obama a socialist. He did not call Health Care Reform socialism.

Sean Hannity mislead his audience.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Alex

Just a little pre-emption.

Al Sharpton did not call Obama a socialist. He did not call Health Care Reform socialism.

Sean Hannity mislead his audience.

I'm not sure if this is in response to Chris' post, but we've been discussing Socialism quite a bit in these parts. A LOT of people have been throwing around the "socialism" moniker like it is the end of everything.

I have this reaction to certain "so called evil" lables: liberal and socialism being two common ones at the moment. It makes me want to embrace the terms and lovingly use them. (It was great to do with with the word "Pussy" recently.)

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

Sean Hannity mislead his audience.

And this is news... How?

[Alex]

No, not a response to Chris. Just pre-emption of something I've seen in a couple other places with people saying "If even Al Sharpton says Obama/HCR is socialist then it makes you wonder..."

That's a misrepresentation of what he said so I figured I'd try to trigger some investigation before anybody said it here (if indeed it would have happened).

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles, I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the CBO estimates. I'm not gleaning them from their website, but the news about deficit reduction figures - especially in the later stages - was very widespread and, as I pointed out, what gave so many Dems cover enough to finally vote in favor.


Also, are you confusing Executive Order with Signing Statement? The latter is what Bush abused and Obama objected to. Executive Orders are perfectly legit (as long as they aren't issued to circumvent the law). I'm pretty sure it was an Executive Order Obama pledged to issue on the abortion question.


I hate to get into that, but I hope it's still the bullsh!t option you complained of. Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure. There's no legitimate role for the federal government to deny coverage for one legal procedure over another, simply because some people object to it. It's legal. That would be like people objecting to tobacco crops being included in a farm subsidy plan.

I don't think any Congressperson was "fooled" by Obama's pledge - but I wish it were so.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I hate to get into that, but I hope it's still the bullsh!t option you complained of. Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure. There's no legitimate role for the federal government to deny coverage for one legal procedure over another, simply because some people object to it. It's legal. That would be like people objecting to tobacco crops being included in a farm subsidy plan.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, and because I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue, there is the question of elective vs. necessary.

I don't think anyone is outraged that the proposed insurance plans do not cover cosmetic surgeries, yet those are perfectly legal.

At what point is an abortion considered elective? Is "a child would be inconvenient" enough of to consider it necessary? Where is the line drawn that says, "On this side an abortion is medically necessary, and on this side it is an elective procedure."

I'm personally having difficulty deciding where I'd draw the line. I'm pretty okay with Hyde as currently written. And the cries from opponents of this reform that this will lead to rampant elective abortions are absurd. But there are people who are arguing that even Hyde is too restrictive, that there should essentially all abortions should be covered, and that I can't agree with.

[innerSpaceman]

GD, I was surprised during this whole debate to find that abortions are covered at all - because I presumed they were considered elective. Apparently, not so.

So the issue is, if insurance companies cover a legal procedure as a medical necessity, who is the federal government to decide that particular legal procedure should be singled out for exclusion?

And NA, also anticipating Leo's response and elaborating on GD's - with auto insurance, you are free to not buy it ... and not drive. You will have no such opt out of medical insurance. You will be required to buy it in the same way you are required to pre-pay your income taxes before they are due (in that both happen to be, imo, unconstitutional - but you have to do it anyway or face big trouble).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

GD, I was surprised during this whole debate to find that abortions are covered at all - because I presumed they were considered elective. Apparently, not so.

It's shifted around a bit. Hyde was passed right after Roe v. Wade was decided. It was initially written to prevent Medicare from covering abortions except in cases of health risk to the mother, rape, and incest. It was later rewritten to remove the health risk exception. And then again rewritten to remove the rape and incest exception. But in 1993, those exceptions were written back in and that's where we stand now.