Any criticism of the way things are must necessarily be predicated upon a set of expectations, derived arbitrarily or otherwise, that make allowances for the existence of better alternatives. Thus it follows that the alternative which is to be pursued by the leadership of an organization should be one that has measurable and lasting benefits for their respective constituents. Why then do the republicans continue to propose alternatives which have demonstrably negative consequences? This question would be entirely unproductive if the one who poses the question is not willing to concede the existence of an objective reality of some sort. I do concede the existence of objective reality and will critique the proposed republican alternatives to some prominent democratic initiatives according to the standard necessitated by the existence of an objective reality.
1. Health care
The republicans are almost categorically opposed to the type of health care reform which would allow for the government to interdict health insurance entities from denying people coverage based on preexisting conditions. Their reasons for this opposition, simply put, are to allow for the insurance industry to generate the maximum amount of profit possible. This position seems righteous enough doesn't it? I mean who is the government ( an entity formed by the people to act on behalf of people for the purpose of pursuing the peoples best interest) to interfere with a corporations ability to make a profit? This position is laughable when pitted against an objective hierarchy of values that categorically deems sustaining human life as a higher priority than generating profits. That is why the democrats proposed a bill that would unburden the insurance companies from the unwanted task of canceling the coverage of cancer patients because their treatment is too costly. Let the government handle it. There will never be a clause in a corporate charter which directs the corporation to execute a principle purpose of promoting the general welfare of the people. That sounds more like the constitution to me. A document that was authored by individuals who intended for government to be a benevolent and empathetic entity. What set of values could possibly prioritize the welfare of an artificial entity over real human beings? This is my chief concern when I think about the state of the union: a large segment of our population embraces a core value system which prioritizes the general idea of profits over the general idea of helping people live long healthy lives. The type of value system that calls for the unnecessary eradication of human lives for the sake of maintaining hegemony. The type of value system that places the Q4 earnings of oil companies over maintaining a sustainable environment. The systemic shortsightedness of the republican party, their passionate embrace of illogicality, and their complete inability to care for the welfare of those who are not "able" to create a decent standard of living for themselves concerns me to no end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Come on man, do you seriously believe this? What research, other than watching the news have you done about this topic? Your main issue that you are attacking is affordable insurance to all. Fine, lets play ball.
ReplyDeleteAffordable insurance and not allowing insurance agenices to block people from getting coverage based on pre-existing conditions is the primary point of agreement within the two parties on healthcare. Dont believe me, copy/paste the links below and research those websites.
The main thing republicans do not want is a single payer system. Democrats may argue that their proposed bill allows for private insurance to exists, but, they say so without performing a proper SWOT analysis. To quote you, the current proposal "[has]demonstrably negative consequences" when it comes to the private insurance market. Private insurance will not be able to compete with government mandated healthcare, especially since the bill does not allow for citizens to purchase insurance across state lines. Private insurance will ultimately fail, requiring us to purchase healthcare from the government.
And just so you know, if we choose not to buy into government helthcare, we will be taxed an additional 2.5% of your annual income and upwards to the meet the threshold of the market premium. At least they were smart enough to remove this mandate for veterans who have earned healthcare, but the general public is still screwed. Oh, and if you choose not to pay this fine, you can face criminal charges with fines up to $25K and imprisonment up to a year. Dont believe me, read this letter from the House Means and Ways Committee with the link below
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf
The links below take you to a couple of the bills that have been introduced by republicans that have been turned down by the democrats. BOTH of these bills are in favor of eliminating the power of insurance companies to deny coverage. The democrats what all or nothing, they are not willing to meet in between. And FYI, one of these bills comes from our very own Senator, Tom Price.
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/Solutions/EmpoweringPatientsFirstAct.htm
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=SponsoredBills.HealthCareFreedomAct
All I ask is do your research before you accuse the Republicans of not offering up ideas. Just because you use such intricate vocabulary in your blog doesnt always mean you know what your talking about.
Well researched response I applaud you for that, however you are neglecting to realize the fact that because republicans are uniformly obstructing any democratic proposals they are excluding themselves from the reconciliation process which allows bills to be tweaked and adjusted after the senate votes it in. Also you are running the worst case scenario as the only scenario so I will propose to you another scenario which allows for the government to take control and fix a systemic problem which was created by free market economics. The price point for health care has been set artificially high by pharmaceutical companies hoping to increase their profit margins and the insurance companies followed suit, but what about the consumers? what protections have been afforded to them? Has the average middle class income increased at the same rate as the profit margins for these mega corporations? The answer is NO, of course, because up until now the governments ability to intervene on behalf of their citizens was stifled by the republicans. Secondly, your point about potential criminal charges being brought up against those who refuse to purchase health insurance is simply not true and if you read the actual text in the proposed legislation concerning such matters you will find your claim to be utterly baseless there are no provisions for jailing those who don't comply. And lastly, yes, I can see the potential for private insurance companies not being able to adequately compete with a governmental insurance entity but I think that that is a good thing. Health care should not be a profit driven enterprise. The bottom line of the industry should be to provide treatment for the sick and wounded not to generate profits.
ReplyDelete