Monday, March 22, 2010

Health Care Insurance for Dummies part three

Well, most of you know now that the House of Representatives passed Obamacare. I hadn't finished the series yet on health care (pt. 1, pt. 2), so I'll say a little more today. To do so, I think Rush Limbaugh has really hit the target with these words:

What's happened here is not insurance. Insurance is you insure yourself against a catastrophe, something that might happen to wipe you out. This is not insurance. This is simply the insurance companies being captivated or taken over by the government and having their behavior mandated for the express purpose of putting them out of business. Under this bill, as I told you last week, you don't have to buy insurance. You can wait until the accident or the illness happens and then buy it that day, and they have to sell it to you. No matter what. If you get terminal cancer and the doctor gives you three months, they have to sell you your coverage. Except you're not going to have to buy it. If you can't afford it, we -- all your neighbors -- will. No insurance company can stay in business doing this.

It's the same thing with preexisting conditions. No preexisting condition? The liberals keep talking about automobile insurance companies. What happens to you, you have an automobile policy, you're driving around, and you have an accident and you do a lot of damage? Hey, guess what? You are a higher risk. Your auto insurance premium goes up, right? Why shouldn't that happen with health care? Why shouldn't it? (whining) "It's not fair? No, it's not fair!" Well, it won't now. It won't now. So, yeah, preexisting conditions are going to be covered, but who's going to pay for this? Insurance premiums are going to skyrocket in the next couple of years until they are out of business and the government steps in to take over with the...public option. Which is just waiting a couple of months, couple of days, couple years down the tracks. It's just waiting for this to happen because this bill mandates the destruction of the private health insurance business.


He hits on a lot of the problems with government controlled health care. I don't even think anything more needs to be said. He deals with a few more issues than what I brought up in earlier essays on this. This bill is unlike anything else that we have in America. People who drive poorly pay higher auto insurance, but that idea won't affect health care. People will be rewarded for their stupid health care decisions. Think of President Obama, the smoker, who is likely a future lung cancer patient. You can smoke your whole life, get lung cancer, and then get health "insurance" the moment you find out you got the cancer. Neat deal, huh? I think there are going to be a lot of people who like this! They'll vote Democrat. Of course, it won't work. Nothing like this will work without wrecking the economy. But you can be completely irresponsible and not pay for it. People will love it!!

Homosexuals will do what they do, get the HIV virus, then full-blown AIDS, and they can start paying for insurance the day they need health care. Good deal, huh? We know that isn't insurance, don't we? Insurance gets paid before you have the accident and before you have the event occur for which you need to be insured. This is essentially giving someone money for being irresponsible and not paying for insurance. This is where we are folks. More bad behavior being rewarded. And next we'll go to immigration. People who break immigration laws will be rewarded. The whole point is getting votes and gaining power for the Democrat Party, using our money to do it. It isn't about health or about our country being great.

Let's think about someone with which you'd have a little more sympathy. Little boy gets leukemia and he can't get healthcare. He wants insurance, but the insurance companies won't give it to him. Evil people. Well, before that they loved their flat screen TV. They also liked their trip to Disneyland. They enjoyed buying those lottery tickets. They didn't like paying insurance premiums. Who needs them?!?! Then came the leukemia. But that's OK now. Obamacare is here! Don't get me wrong. I want the little boy to get treatment. However, do you see how this trains people to behave irresponsibly?

So how will this work politically? The earlier Obamacare gets passed, the more time people will have to start getting the benefits that the Democrats think will persuade people to vote for them. Some people will really suffer, but they are hoping that more people will like what they're getting to offset those who are angry with it. Other bad things could happen to the economy that will sink them, but they think it is worth the risk long term to put more of the American economy under government control. They are creating more dependents who will need to vote Democrat to keep being taken care of. Those people like the idea of other people paying for what they want, so the Democrats will look very attractive to them. Get the idea?

By the way, in light of a few comments I've received, readers could also read this article, entitled A Dark Day for Freedom in America, in the London Telegraph by Nile Gardiner.

And here is another very good response by George Will about the Democrats continuing as the dependency party.

20 Ways Obamacare will take away your freedom.

12 comments:

mike said...

So what you're saying, Kent, is that you don't like sharing? Showing grace? Mercy?

Sorry...that's a cheap shot, I couldn't help it. ;)

Personally, I'm less bothered by the situations you've put forward. But then, my family (a pastor's family) has always struggled with insurance under the old system. My brother was born with a chronic illness. We've never gone to disneyland. We don't do the flat screen tv thing (I don't own a TV, intentionally). But we've barely made it through and my brother was "over the hill" at the age of 20. He got married last summer. And he and his wife haven't known what they were going to do about insurance. He's planning to go to seminary in a year. How do you pay for that? How do you pay for either?

So yes, I'm not bothered by your proposed situations. I'm willing to pay for people like my brother. But I'm also willing to pay for the stupid selfish people who abuse the system, if it means that they get a little more life and maybe, just maybe, hear the gospel and respond before they die. Optimistic? Yes. Naive? Maybe. But I'll take the chance.

What does bother me and why I most definitely *didn't* support this healthcare bill was abortion. Obama's excecutive order is cheap and everyone knows it. And I mourn the fact that there is a very good chance my tax dollars could fund such death and prevent those people from having their opportunity to hear the gospel.

So that's my take. I don't expect you to agree (well, I do expect you to agree on the second part), but at the very least, I hope you can understand.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Mike,

It's a fine question. You are asking a scriptural question. Let's say that both sides want to show mercy, etc. I don't think that's the case, but let's say it's the case. The question is, what is merciful?

The average lifespan will shorten because of the loss of responsibility. Poverty is the biggest issue with regards to average lifespan. The more poor people are, the shorter they live. Plus people should be taught responsibility. They shouldn't be dependents on the government. There are a lot of problems with all this Mike. Something to think through, but I don't think you would be merciful in supporting this. On top of that, we've got an issue of freedom. Our principles of freedom and liberty in the U.S., especially in our Constitution, are based upon Scripture.

Regarding abortion, yes I agree. Did you know that the bill doesn't say anything about abortion, but since Roe v. Wade, it has become a right. President Obama's executive order will not change the law, cannot change the law. It's just so much window dressing. So the bill won't care for the unborn child, the most helpless person in our society, so it really doesn't care.

mike said...

Your argument assumes that life span will become shorter because of government health care. I see no evidence of that. Your argument seems to be:

1. Government health care causes less personal responsibility.
2. Less personal responsibility causes poverty.
3. Poverty causes shorter lifespans.
4. Thus government health care causes shorter lifespans.

Last time I checked, Canadians are more healthy and live longer than Americans.

Our principles of freedom and liberty in the U.S., especially in our Constitution, are based upon Scripture.

And deism and Free Masonry... -- originating from men who wrote their own versions of the Bible. I'm surprised you don't think they are worse than text critics! At least Dan Wallace *thinks* that what he's doing is good and Biblical. The founding fathers didn't like the Bible so they changed it blatantly.

No thank you. My citizenship is in heaven. I'll stick with Paul and Philippians and his warnings to people who potentially would get caught up in their faith and their enjoyment of Roman citizenship.

Anyway. Its true. I was asking a scriptural question.
That's because that's what it's all about.

I do know that the bill says nothing about abortion. That's the problem. There's nothing to stop funding to go from abortion except Obama's window dressing -- as you quite aptly put it. I'm going to have to remember that one next time I'm conversing on this issue. Thank you!

Kent Brandenburg said...

Mike,

Thanks again. Let's just say we both understand that our citizenship is in heaven. What I think that you are agreeing is that you understand that this is not a matter of mercy, but how mercy gets accomplished. I believe it should be people actually doing the mercy rather than pawning it off on the government, which people often welcome. I think you have my argument, as a whole, wrong. The loss of personal responsibility is a separate argument, hence the comment. I'm saying that Obamacare will result in more poverty generally.

As far as wealth is concerned, the U.S. has a higher average income than Canada, that is, unless during the Obama presidency that has changed, which would only help to prove my point.

Lifespans are pretty close between the two. My point, however, is that anything that lowers the average income will be what most affects lifespan. I'm applying that only to your "mercy" point. I don't think we can say that we can make comparisons apples to apples, but I'm referring to the general principle, which is not as easy to compare unless you are comparing between third world countries and their lifespans (see their average incomes).

Regarding the United States, I would go back further to the reformation to say that freedom resulted from that reformation which resulted in a higher standard of living for more people. The United States would be an extension of that with a Protestant work ethic, and the limitation of government power resulting in more freedom and innovation seen in our health care industry, where people from Canada come here to take advantage of our health care. We have also sent our health care technology all over the world, helping everyone.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuals are not the only ones who contract HIV, you're focusing on one category of people that I'm guessing you're prejudice against.

A lot of people in this country do not have healthcare and need it greatly. You shouldn't judge things before you've gone through the situation yourself.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous, I think we'll just trust our readers to understand how HIV is passed, and what crowd of people get it. I don't have to include everyone's behavior, which happens to be passed by needles by drug addicts and then other behavior.

I also know that I've had very little money, but I paid for health care. I can sympathize, but I don't think govt is the solution, again.

Anonymous said...

I'm just curious why you chose homosexuals only though?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Here's why:

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous,

With great care, I direct you to this as well:

http://sites.google.com/site/thross7/SodomT.pdf?attredirects=0

Gary Webb said...

I have to admit that reading Mike's post is one of the most discouraging things I have read in a long time. I am assuming that Mike is a Christian & would claim to believe the Bible. However, apparently he is ignorant of what the Bible teaches about economics and/or finances, ignorant of our Constitution, ignorant of human nature, and ignorant of the world history - particularly regarding Socialism, Marxism, & Communism. I recommend that Mike consider the economic setup in the OT. And, the comments by an unbeliever might eIt has been said the greatest volume of sheer brain power in one place occurred when Jefferson dined alone. -- John Kennedy

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. -- Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -- Thomas Jefferson

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. -- Thomas Jeffersonven help:

Liz said...

I have a question,
if any of your daughters were raped, you would be against abortion(I know you're probably thinking my daughters would never get raped)? But what if they did? It would be extremely difficult to carry a rape child for 9 months. Also, if abortion was illegal, can you imagine the thousands of women using other ways to terminate the pregnancy, and how dangerous that would be? That's why it cannot be illegal.

Liz

Kent Brandenburg said...

You are correct. That won't happen to my daughters. And we should change the rape laws. We should put rapists to death. Watch how things would change then, but I don't hear pro-abortion advocates pushing that position. That's where the problem for rape is, in addition to quite a few other points I could add to that.

Our position, however, is that we don't abort a child. Period. We don't assume that the child is a problem even in the case of the rape. God opens and closes the womb. The rape is the problem, not the child.

Last, even though that is the consistent position, most advocating the outlawing of abortion make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. Have you noticed that?