I liked the Bennett/Wyden plan better than I like Obamacare. But even when
Senator Bennett's party controlled both houses of congress and the White
House, he couldn't get it passed.
I would not be a bad idea to have health insurance de-linked from one's
employer. it would be a better idea to create a system that says
healthcare is a national right, and that government funds such a system. In
this way, we all pay into the health care system as individuals and there are no
shirkers. The more you earn or spend, the more you contribute. (Pick a
system.)And by the way, the doctors and hospitals don't have
to be employees and property of the government. Other than Britain or Canada,
this is how things work in first world countries.
"Not my boss's business." I agree, so why force the boss to pay
for it? One of the problems with the Federal Government trying to "fix"
everything is that they are too far removed to make decisions that benefit
individual circumstances. It's the case with healthcare, education,
welfare, etc. Government power was supposed to be localized for a reason. I
agree that letting people choose the healthcare plan that works for them and
their family is a much better solution than blanket coverage.
Bob, referring to the VA system as a single payer system is cherry picking
facts. Not is the VA system a single payer system, more significantly, it is a
single provider system. I am not aware of anyone who is arguing for a single
"With the scandal at the VA having tarnished the idea of a single-payer
system run by the government"Well, that whole sentence undermines Mr.
Bennett's own arguments. Mainley because, it proves he doesn't know
what he's talking about. A single payer system would be where all US
citizens get Medicare(or some similar medical insurance) that is operated by the
government. The VA is a universal system, where the government owns the
hospital, employee's the doctors, nurses and other medical personnel. They
are in no way the same thing.
I don't know how de-coupling insurance from Hobby Lobby's owners would
be workable, by their own act of conscience.If they're
unwilling to provide insurance that includes certain contraceptives,
wouldn't they also be uncomfortable giving the money to their employees,
who in turn could turn around and purchase the same contraceptives? It seems the only way Hobby Lobby could remain plausibly uninvolved is to not
provide healthcare credits at all. Actually, if they boosted the employees
salaries without an insurance credit, the employees could still purchase the
contraceptives in question, which Hobby Lobby would object to. Could they require employees to not purchase those contraceptives, under
threat of termination.This slippery slide has silicone all over it.
Bob, health care decisions are in fact in the hands of individuals, as long as
the health insurance companies agree. I've seen the judgment and decisions
of doctors overruled by health insurance companies. The idea of an unknown,
unseen institution making our decisions has been with us for a long time. So
then the question is, if this is going to be the case, is it better to provide
universal coverage, even though so decisions will be limited by the balancing of
costs vs. benefit? I would say so, yes. Recap: We already have portioned
medical care. Let's make it universal and not worry so much as to which
institutional interest makes the decision. In fact, I would prefer the federal
government because they are not in the business of making money off us.
Esquire: "not in the business of making money off us." Are you kidding?
If laughter could be taxed, would you still make that statement? Those who
don't want to make decisions would do well in any other system in the world
now or in history, which would send a shiver up the spine for most!
Wow. I seldom find myself defending Mr. Bennett, but I must here. While I
don't believe the national government should be involved in health care
outside of regulating interstate commerce, if we are stuck with it doing so, the
plan to let each employee determine the health care program they prefer is much
less onerous than what we have now. Two other quick responses. @IOCC, try
not to exaggerate. HL has never indicated that they are interested in
controlling what their employees do, only opposing paying for things they
disagree with. Big Difference.@esquire, In what world of massive taxes,
fees and required contributions does your final sentence make sense? "I
would prefer the federal government because they are not in the business of
making money off us." And, if you don't think they are making money off
us now, just wait as the debt rises and more is needed to fund those social
security and medicare accounts as more people reach retirement age and start
taking money out of the system that is already in serious trouble.
Giving individuals more control over their health care insurance is the opposite
of what Obamacare is all about.It is a huge wealth redistribution
plan where healthy people are forced to pay way more for insurance than they
actually need in order to pump money into a system that must provide expensive
care to others. If you give people choices, they would opt for cheaper
alternatives and the system would collapse.
“Hobby Lobby's owners' religious convictions are very well
known. ” No, not really. Did you know the owners of the Hobby Lobby
belong to a religion that considers Mormonism a dangerous cult?SCOTUS essentially says this corporation can obstruct federal support for
something that violates its religious beliefs. And “demonically
inspired” Mormonism violates those religious beliefs. Check out the
“Assembly of God Church Statement on the LDS.” Could they eventually
dictate that their taxes go toward Mormon suppression? “Change the tax law so that Hobby Lobby and every other employer can
give its health care expenditures directly to its employees, tax free,
empowering them to control their own money and pick their own plans.”That would be kind of like abolishing social security wouldn’t
it? Would the abolition of social security be next?We could
privatize social security just like GW wanted to do in 2003. And people could
take their money and invest in the stock market. Of course, if we had done as GW
suggested in 2003, much of that money would have been lost in GW’s stock
crash of 2008, wouldn’t it?Maybe we should just avoid
half-baked “Conservative” schemes.
Bob Bennett knows that his plan would never pass Congress. Obama said he was 90%
for it, but realistically knew that it would never pass Congress. Who stopped it? The Republicans in the pay of the insurance companies,
that's who. Bob has only his party to blame for the failure of
I agree with Bob Bennett. The government has no right to force a company to
hold money from its employees to pay for prescriptions. Only the very
uninformed think that a company is paying for those prescriptions out of its own
pockets. Employees are paid a wage. Taxes are withheld. Benefits are
withheld. Social Security (including the employer's "matching
funds" are withheld.Pay the employ 100% of the money earned and
then let that employee pay all the taxes and all the "benefits"
himself. If people had 100% of their paycheck in their possession and then had
to "give" the government the taxes that the government has assessed
there would be a revolt. People would finally understand what the government is
doing.Health care is not a gift from government. It is not a gift
from the employer. It is an expense that every American pays, either directly
or in lieu of wages. Those who have "subsidized" insurance are requiring
you and me to pay for their insurance premiums.
"it can find a way to exempt the rare corporation with strong moral
objections."I know you were only quoting this, Bob, but no
corporation has strong moral objections. My apologies to both Romney and the
Supreme Court, but corporations are not people. They do not have a moral sense.
They can certainly behave in a way that is immoral, but that is a function of
the people who determine the corporate culture. Let's stop talking about
corporations as if they were living, breathing human beings. They are a hunk of
the Hobby Lobby decision was about one thing and only one thing.... federal
government powerthe Feds put on the power play and they lost as they
should haveall of the chatter about women and birth control options
is white noise, the most embarrassing thing about this is really Justice
Ginsburg and her editorial that has nothing to do with jurisprudence, she should
@ Light and Liberty and ShaunMcC, taxes are different than marking up products
and services to make a profit. Taxes are revenue for government services, not
meant to provide a return on investment. If you think taxes are the same,
perhaps you should learn more about the concept of government. You may not like
to pay them, but that doesn't mean you are correct. you aren't.
Republican Bob Bennett does not know what he is talking about as pointed out by
DN readers above.How does a Republican hang around DC for as long as
the former Senator and not know the most basic kind of distinction regarding
"It is the law that makes you free" is probably the most true statement
in the modern world. The war against our federal government is a war
against the rights and freedoms of all Americans. All rights and freedoms of
all Americans depend on the federal government having power and control over all
Americans and their enemies. The government takes freedom from some people so
that all people might have greater more desirable freedoms. If we
remove the control over the health care business, Americans will lose the
freedom to have proper, dependable, responsible and economical health care. The
notion that every individual knows what's best for himself is not
necessarily true in health care. And when we give private individuals control
over our health care we give away out right to know what's best for us.
GaryO: "...Maybe we should just avoid half-baked “Conservative”
schemes."We should avoid ALL half-baked schemes, not just the
conservative ones. Obamacare wasn't even half-baked. Almost no one who
voted for it even bothered to read the bill. The fact that Obama has changed the
law dozens of times (without constitutional authority BTW) since it passed is
proof of how little it was thought out before passing. Unintended consequences
(or maybe they really were intended like losing your doctor) are everywhere with
this law.So I agree with you. Let's avoid the half-baked ideas
(Cap and Trade, Immigration Reform, Gun Control, Legalized Drugs, Wealth
Redistribution, SM Marriage, etc.) I would list some conservative half-baked
ideas too, but for now they have no power to actually get any of them passed.
@ordinaryfolks:"...it would be a better idea to create a system that
says healthcare is a national right..."Healthcare IS a nation
right. If you want/need some care, go to a doctor and get it. If you want
healthcare insurance, go to an insurance company and get it. It ain't
rocket science."...and that government funds such a
system."If the government funds such a system, you will find
that the government will begin to decide about much of your life... such as what
you can drink and eat (except cannabis) and what services you are eligible to
receive. If you get old, and almost everyone will, and need some serious health
care, the government can tell you to go pound sand. Called in some circles
Esquire: The irony about those who invest their philosophy in government is the
idea almost universally applied, but seldom acknowledged or understood, is the
concept of agency (meaning one always has a choice). What is it about agency
that progressives or just many people in general won't acknowledge or
accept. They would get a lot further with me if they old just acknowledge from
the outset that they don't like agency and want somebody else to make their
decisions for them. Perhaps we can create a state where these type of people
can have al their decisions made for them and be done with it! Drones are great
to have around and provide a great service! What this means in simplicity is
this: you have a choice on whether you want a product or not. I like making my
own decisions and thank God every day for that blessing. Government continues
to annoy me because it continues to want to make my decisions for me, and gets
support from people to try and do it! I am a simple man and want to keep it
"With the scandal at the VA having tarnished the idea of a single-payer
system run by the government,..."Good grief Senator Bennett,
you'd think there were no single payer health plans in the western world.
Well, there are, like the one in the Great White North! Could we have a look at
Hey JoeCapitalist2 -Sorry, I realized my mistake as soon as I
posted.“Half baked” and “Conservative schemes”
are synonymous. I was being redundant, and that’s a bad habit to get
into.“Obamacare wasn’t even half-baked?”Well, let’s not forget that “Conservative” legislators had
every opportunity to weigh in on what would go into the ACA. Obama practically
begged them to contribute, but they shirked their responsibility and refused.“I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues,"
Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the
table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and
Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there
and move it forward." – Barack Obama, February 8, 2010“Conservatives” have only themselves to blame for the things they
don’t like about ObamaCare and for countless other debacles. It’s
not Obama’s fault that “Conservatives” once again shirked
their duty to this nation.“Conservatives” have a habit
of poor citizenship don’t they? . . . especially the politicos.
And please, please, please could we get employers out of health care completely?
The whole Hobby Lobby dustup is but a continuation of the deceit surrounding
American health care beginning with Ronald Reagan's huckstering for the AMA
in the 1950's. I don't think either major party has the ability to
resist the powerful lobbies weighing in on this issue. Only a revived Socialist
Party can deal with this matter.
GaryO: 'Well, let’s not forget that “Conservative”
legislators had every opportunity to weigh in on what would go into the ACA.
Obama practically begged them to contribute...I want to consult closely with our
Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to
put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large
meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best
ideas that are out there and move it forward." – Barack Obama,
February 8, 2010"Do you honestly believe any part of that is
true??? He lied about that just like he lied about keeping your doctor. Obama
has NEVER considered anything that has been proposed by the GOP. None of their
proposed fixes for Obamacare either before or after it passed has even been
considered by this president.It's "my way or the
highway" with Obama. He is willing to listen as long as you agree with him
on every point. If you dissent at all, you are an obstructionist and a "do
nothing" Congress. Compromise is not a word he is familiar with.
Leave health care decisions up to individuals? Does that include giving a woman
the right to decide what to do with her own body?
Hey JoeCapitalist2 -“Do you honestly believe any part of that
is true???” Absolutely. Here in the land of reality, facts are
facts.Of course it’s true. Obama was quoted as saying that
BEFORE the ACA was ever passed.And yes, I know how much Right
Wingers would love to change history to make it conform with their absolutely
false narrative and their prejudices. But facts are facts.FACE the
facts.Conservatives can whine, moan, equivocate, prevaricate,
protest, fib, distort the facts, and roll their eyes . . . But that
doesn’t change the truth.Get used to it and accept the FACT
that Conservatives had plenty of opportunity to shape the ACA, but they chose
instead to try to just shoot it down.. . . Which was a VERY poor
decision.“Conservatives” have only themselves to blame
for the content of Obamacare.Your false narrative only flies in that
alternate reality of Right Wing La La Land.
The lines are clearly drawn. It's time for each American to choose a side.
Does the government have the authority to require a business to fund the
destruction of life? If so, who gave that "right" to government? The
Declaration of Independence requires government to protect and to preserve life.
When was an amendment passed that turned government against the most helpless
among us?Does government have the "right" to declare war on
the unborn?Does government have the "right" to require a
business to fully fund pills that will destroy human life - if those pills are
used as prescribed?If you really think that the government can
require a business to do that, what guarantees do you have that the government
will not require a business to "help" the aged to cross over into
All of us understate what the government does now. Government controls what you
eat, drink, wear, learn, what business you can operate, and most all of the
health care you receive. As a matter of fact, every thing that is done, built,
consumed and experienced in the United States of America is permitted, regulated
and controlled by our government. And it's all for our freedom and safety.
The problem with the idea is that individuals, left to their own, will make bad
and uninformed decisions regarding health care. Given the option, many of them
wouldn't pay for any of it, but they then become a problem when they run to
the government in an emergency room because they believed they'd never need
health care of any kind. We all need health care sooner or later.
It's the legacy of our humble origin; we're born to fall apart. That's why we need a single payer system.
It is obvious that some, read Ulta Bob and Hutterite, either don't believe
in free enterprise or don't understand it! It is as if Socialism were
magically planted in our midst as the pinnacle of human achievement and
Capitaiism had nothing to do with America's economic miracle. I think it
is ingratitude of epic proportions and ignorance on an unprecedented scale! I
am grateful that I am a teacher in high school and can unashamedly educate
students on the difference America, under the power of morality, free
enterprise, and the greatest charter of freedom the world has ever known, has
made on the world stage. Socialism, immoral people, including those who believe
that abortion and gay marriage are something to strive for as virtuous and
grounded in liberty, don't have anything to do with America's
greatness. Those who believe Government is the grantor of our rights are either
uneducated, or don't believe in "government of the people, by the
people, and for the people."
L&L, I most decidedly do believe in capitalism, no matter how you spell it.
It pays my bills. It enables me to profit from transporting goods from free
America to restricted America. It makes my fireworks display last friday better
than the neighbour's. But I also know enough about people to know that a
lot of them, and I know that I'm in danger of generalising here, are not
well enough informed to make decisions such as health care coverage for
themselves. They end up becoming a burden on government by default, at the
emergency room door, as a result of these poor decisions. As someone who has
first hand experience on a day to day basis with a national single payer system,
I can tell you it works. It doesn't compromise freedom or impose socialism
as you claim. It just makes sense. And, in spite of your bluster, it seems to be
the moral thing to do. Oh, and by the way, thinking back to high school,
don't overestimate how much you're indoctrinating students.
They're going to be their own people, gay marriage accepting and all should
that be the case. Goodnight.
Some things are best done by free enterprise but some things are done better by
the Socialist scheme of people working together. Business is a
necessary part of society of civilized, it provides for the sharing of talents
and wealth to the members of the society. Neither free enterprise nor Socialism
can do the proper job alone. Free enterprise should be used for the
optional, individual established needs of society. These might include
entertainment, recreation, clothing, cars, houses, food, etc. Free enterprise
allows the provider much latitude in the presentation and advertising of a
product, sometimes free enterprise overdoes this when it creates the need
itself. Health care should not be provided by free enterprise. Socialism is best for the society's needs when the individuals capability
cannot protect him from dangers of the world. This includes, military, law
enforcement, standards and measures, coordination of individual rights and
freedom and anything else, the people of the society decides they want their
government to do, within its capabilities. America is great for a
lot of reasons, free enterprise is just one of them.
The idea to take the employers out of health care is a good one in concept. But
there are problems including how does one make sure that the employee actually
purchases health insurance. Even if the employer was to augment wages for that
purpose, how do you mandate that those funds will actually be spent for health
insurance? This would be a good thing for employers because over time their
health care costs will become fixed, but how many will just take advantage by
using the funds for other needs (especially minimum wage workers) and still end
up in the emergency rooms? The best approach would be to go to a single payer
plan, taking the profit out of health care insurance costs and eliminating the
religious issues. The government could set up a charge back schedule that would
take into consideration individualized medical needs. What you have then, is
Medicare for all.
GaryOSince you are so hung up on "facts", please provide us
all with one.Name one thing the GOP has proposed (with Obamacare,
immigration, tax reform, etc.) where Obama actually listened, considered it
carefully, and compromised. Anything?Obama complains all day long
about how the Congress is obstructionists because they won't give in to his
demands. Where has he given an inch to the wishes of the other half of the
country?(And don't respond with the typical far-left rebuttal
of how some left-wing agenda item was really a GOP idea.) We have already heard
a hundred times how Obamacare is really "Romneycare" or some other idea
this president rammed through was kind of like something a conservative
think-tank said a decade ago. Tired arguments.
In cancer, unlimited growth of some cells becomes a danger to the whole
organism. Unfettered capitalism is the very definition of cancer, where some
"businessmen" and companies take more and more and more to the detriment
of the whole system.Look at the influence Big Pharma and Big
Insurance has over the entire healthcare system - openly buying lawmakers and
laws, openly trading executives to sit on government oversight panels and then
taking them back into the company when the appointment is over. Our healthcare
is the most expensive in the world, with much of that money going to big
corporations, not patient care.Capitalism must be restrained and
curbed and controlled, and moving capitalism out of the health insurance
business may be the best way to provide better healthcare for all Americans. Job-related-health-insurance went national when wages were frozen during
WWII. It was a work-around by business to increase compensation. Now, it is a
monster that has lead to the SCOTUS ruling that courts can identify acceptable
"sincere religious beliefs."
Hutterite: with all due respect, based on your statements, you do not
understand Socialism. I think a more honest approach would be to admit that you
think Socialism is good, then you won't be stuck in a patronizing situation
saying either you are alright with not making people accountable, or that you
are going to solve their problems for them, which seldom if ever works. If you,
or anyone else, can't see why freedom and choice are important for both the
long term and short term consequences, it is of no use to discuss it. As far as
"indoctrinating" students, I must say unequivocally that telling them
the truth is not indoctrinating, it is giving them the truth so that they can
make a choice, hopefully one that will protect what makes every person noble,