Morality of Obamacare
By debrakcarey
@debrakcarey (19887)
United States
13 responses
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
19 Nov 12
I do not believe for a minute that the purpose of Obamacare is to make sure all people have adequate health insurance and thus health care. It's my belief that the purpose is to greatly increase government, government power and government reach, to say nothing of party reach and power via purchasing votes. Eventually health care will be a system of favors. If you are in good standing with the political powers that be, you will get healthcare (perhaps limited due to a shortage of doctors). And if not in good standing with the political powers that be, you will have a very long wait indeed. This of course is morally wrong in a big way.
- I'm not saying our government is a dictator, but every dictator has promised wonderful things on their amassing and gathering of power. Power given over to them because of the said promises. This of course is morally reprehensible. The U.S. constitution has blocked this type of thing, but many are seeking to proclaim the constitution as an 'evolving' document. This too is reprehensible, the tearing down of the safeguards against government growing too big and too powerful.. becoming in essence, sooner or later, a dictator, which is what power seeks to do.
3 people like this
@mysticmaggie (2498)
• United States
21 Nov 12
Flowerchilde, when any entity wants to take over something that should not be taken over, they immediately begin denigrating its worth. This is what is happening in our government today.
If only there were people who remembered Hitler's beginning. He did not seem a monster when he began. He 'gave' things to people provided by the government. Next he made them believe they could not survive without the 'free' things from the government. He assured the populance that all would be better if they only had the perfect race of people. He said it gently in the beginning and somehow it began to make sense to the people.
When the deaths of so many Jews began, many Germans did not believe anything bad was happening. When the war ended and people from towns surrounding the gas ovens were forced to see the camps and all the corpses piled into ditches for burial, only then did many know for the first time they had handed freedom to a tyrant.
We will discover the same thing one day if we don't open our eyes now.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
19 Nov 12
"Health care" is really just an argument about insurance. Health care has little to do with it, it's providing insurance that is the problem. And the problem with that is that people now think that insurance should cover everything--checkups, medicines, nutritional consultations, elective surgeries, walkers and canes, immunizations, emergency care, hospitalizations, and on and on. Insurance used to cover just ERs and hospitalization and therefore even a family like mine could afford it when I was growing up. In fact, I could afford it as a teenager and a young adult. Since people began expecting it to cover everything (modeled after the Cadillac plans of big corporations trying to attract the best talent) costs went up for every aspect of health care and health insurance.
There are thousands of medical professionals working in free clinics that donate their time and hundreds of businesses that support those clinics--with little or no contribution from the government. We would be better served as individuals and a nation to work on the free/low cost clinic aspect of health care rather than force everyone in the nation to either buy insurance or to subsidize the premiums for those who can't afford it. And opening up the field of competition by allowing insurance to be sold over state lines would help bring down the cost significantly.
Obamacare is merely a very costly shortcut to provide insurance for everyone by robbing us of our hard earned money in the form of tax dollars. It completely ignores common sense solutions and fails to address the root of the problem. It's a lazy man's way of solving things on the backs of the wealth producers so the wealth consumers can have something they have not earned and are therefore not entitled to.
I'd certainly love to have everyone taken care of but this is not the way. Obamacare only adds to the problem while perpetuating the cause.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
Does the government have the right to force one person to take care of another person in the form of forcing them to pay taxes that the government then decides how to spend?
I did not really want to get into the whole insurance vs.fine or what it pays for and what will happen when it's fully implemented.
Does the government have the right to force one person to subsidize the living standard of another?
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
21 Nov 12
Debra, we have a lot to be thankful for. Forget the state of the nation--appreciate the miracle of your children and remember the indescribably feeling of love and wonder you felt when you first held them. Look at how the sun shines on the frost, making the ground look as if it's covered in diamonds. Consider your job and how rewarding it can be, your health, the people who love you, the roof over your head and the food that always is available to quiet your hunger. God takes care of us and deserves our sincere thanks and appreciation of his choosing to be our father.
Now that you've (hopefully) been humbled (as was I when I thought of all this), pray tomorrow and everyday that America comes back to God because that's the only way out of this mess. We as a nation have lost his protection and favor because we've rejected him and taken his gifts for granted. We've made ourselves so important that we think we can even influence the earth's climate! If America will repent its hubris and return to God things will turn around. Make this your prayer every day, as it is mine.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
You're right, I am humbled, and I will include a thank you for friends such as yourself. Thank YOU.
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
19 Nov 12
The government is not a moral ruler. It does not have a moral imperative to provide healthcare to anyone. Obamderthalcare has nothing to do with healthcare anyway. It is another government control of the insurance programs in the US. By passing obamderthalcare, the government now has complete control of all the companies in the US. Look at what is already happening to many companies; they are cutting employees hours and raising product prices. Obamderthalcare is going to destroy most small businesses in the US and cause rampant underemployment in the businesses left.
Pay attention as time goes on you will find that only a small minority of Americans will actually qualify for obamderthalcare, but we all have to pay for it over and over...
2 people like this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
19 Nov 12
No we don't have a moral imperative to make sure everyone has health insurance. It comes down to personal responsibility. Charity should be voluntary and not government mandated.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
I agree Lilwonders.
Government is NOT a moral body. It is individuals who are moral agents. Government is a law enforcement body. At least THAT is what it was first set up to be.
As a child I can remember the doctors letting you run a tab. Making house calls (here in MO where I grew up) and applying common sense and sometimes old fashioned cures like salt pork on boils. Never was anyone ever turned away.
Enter government programs, and prices soar, law suits abound and people getting told they must have some way of paying or no service.
@mysticmaggie (2498)
• United States
21 Nov 12
The current rate of expenditure by the government is to spend $10.75 for every $7 in taxes.
Unless and until they stop spending and cut entitlements (we spend more on entitlements than all other expenses combined)we are headed for the demise of this country.
Once we were rich and free with our charity. We can no longer afford to be so generous.
This health plan will fail simply because you cannot add 30 million additional people to it and expect to LOWER costs. Already our insurance premiums have gone up on average $2500 this past year - the first of the plan and it has not been fully implemented yet. That will not happen until 2014. Within the pages, so far, there are 20 tax increases. However, the mere 2700 pages are a pittance of what is to come. Those do not include anywhere near the rules and regs needed to make it a workable program. Look for thousands more pages and taxes to be added in the future.
Medicare is already cutting the number of days elderly are paid for during hospital stays. Check out the Sarasota Herald Tribune of about a week ago. It told of a 99-year old woman who came to the ER having such a difficult time they didn't think she would live through admission. She did and within two days of being admitted, the hospital said she had to leave because Medicare would only pay for those two days. The woman's daughter insisted they keep her. They did, for six days, and now the daughter has a bill for $18,000.
The panel that is trying to cut costs know that most Medicare costs are incurred from age 75 and up. With that being the case, they are indeed looking at the person as a dollar sign and they decide the number of days allowed by Medicare for any illness at specific ages.
As a senior of 65, I am more frightened of this 'benefit' than anything that has ever happened in this country. I have friends who risk being turned down because their health is so poor.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
Stary, we borrow .40 out of every dollar the government spends. And that is an old figure, it may be more.
We have to keep raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow more. We owe more than we produce as a nation. and over half of our people do not pay into the system.
@PointlessQuestions (15397)
• United States
19 Nov 12
We aren't rich. If China called in all of their loans today, we would be a third world country. How can we be rich when the government spends more money than it makes?
2 people like this
@PointlessQuestions (15397)
• United States
19 Nov 12
I agree that it's not right to force people to support others or pay for their healthcare. I feel that everyone should have insurance. There is a portion of the population that can't afford to take care of themselves, and they will always be cared for. I don't like the give me attitude that more and more Americans are having which continues to break the nation. Our grand kids will be paying off the nation's debt because if this. It's really sickening.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
It was the religious people who established the hospitals and schools in this nation because of the imperative to care for the sick and educate people so they could be productive and moral people.
American always was a charitable nation, and in my lifetime I have seen the medical profession go from caretaking, to thinking only of the bottom line. Government insurance (medicare, medicaid) and the AMA have turned this once charitable and caretaking industry around.
The cost of medical care is also affected by a situation of NO COMPETITION. I blame the AMA, a virtual medical UNION that establishes who can practice, where they can practice, on who they can practice. Naturopaths and chiropractors, herbalists and nutritional practitioners are left out of the loop, not allowed into the UNION. Add to that, bigpharma lobbyists, bigagra lobbyists (poor nutrtion leading to lifestyle induced degenerative diseases) and you have a ready population who HAS TO consume your 'healthcare' product.
@mehale (2200)
• United States
12 Dec 12
There are so many ways to look at this question. While I agree that if we CHOOSE to give ( or provide ) someone else with something, whether that something is healthcare, food, shelter, or whatever.....then that is a personal and individual decision. However, when the government decides for us that we not only should, but we are instead REQUIRED to, there is nothing moral there at all. This is simply another example of the government taking more control over not only our personal finances and our daily lives, but also our freedom of choice.
When looked at from that perspective, how then is there anything moral about it? Not to mention the millions of hard working Americans that are just barely getting by, and keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table, and now they will be forced to buy insurance that they cannot afford ( even though the government apparently thinks they can) or pay a fine for not having it, which they also cannot afford. What are they supposed to do, tell their children that there will be no meals this week because they have to buy and make a payment on insurance that they could not afford in the first place simply because the government says they have to? Again nothing moral about it.
This is just another form of government control, another freedom lost, and another way to get still more tax money from the American people. Just because they disguise it as something good and beneficial to fool people into thinking that they have done the people a favor does not mean they have.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Dec 12
I am in total agreement with you. Thank you for responding.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
11 Dec 12
I know I'm quite late to this discussion - what ELSE is new...lol? - but I still felt compelled to add my two cents. First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't take the six minutes to watch the video you linked to. I'm pretty sure I've heard all the "debates" I need to hear and, quite frankly, my mind has been made up for some time. Actually, my mind was made up long before "Obamacare" existed, even long before any of us had ever heard of President Obama!
Many years ago the late Senator Ted Kennedy said, "Health care is a right, not a privilege." Those are the words I believe in and I have absolute no doubt they would be echoed by Jesus Christ were he around today. It's certainly not necessary for someone to be a Christian or religious in any way to care about other human beings but for members of a party that claims to base its policies on Christian principles to subscribe to "You're on your own" as opposed to "We're in it together" is beyond comprehension.
It's certainly true that "health care reform" is in reality "insurance reform" but tragically, unless we have a bank account like Mitt Romney or Donald Trump, without insurance if we or a loved one comes down with a life-threatening illness we'll likely die. That's the hard truth and there's NOTHING moral about allowing that to happen because we hate our current government or government in general or because we believe everything should be market drive and for profit.
Annie
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Dec 12
What the government 'gives' the government can take away, or control to THEIR satisfaction. Obamacare is government control of the availibility of healthcare. WHY else the Independent Payment Advisory Board?
There are other alternatives, many were suggested during the 'healthcare debates'. Unfortunately, Obama was not interested.
The video you chose not to view talks about the morality of taking from those able to pay, and giving to those not able to pay. Really well worth the time to watch, I encourage you to do so.
The Christian religion teaches the INDIVIDUAL to take care of themselves, and if unable, to trust God to provide. It does not teach forced charity, but rather charity from the heart, willingly without coercion. No where does it say the 'KING' should provide or force citizens to provide for others. AND, since we are NOT a Christian nation, as we were reminded by our President, I do not see how the teachings of Jesus Christ have any bearing on this. As for market driven and profit, capitalism is a system where people WILLINGLY participate. I find it more MORAL than any FORCED system. The individual and their doctor should enter into a contract, the presence of a middle man such as the government, is to me, opening us up for rationing (per the Independent Payment Advisory Board). That puts each of us, our lives, under the control of someone who will never see us or know us, and has NO IDEA what WE FIND MORAL or immoral.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Dec 12
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2009/08/19/whose_medical_decisions_part_ii/page/full/
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
20 Nov 12
ObamaCare is NOT health care! It is health INSURANCE! SImilar to your car insurance..you pay a monthly premium to ObamaCare..then when you go to the doctor..you either pay a deductible or a co pay until you met a deductible...then the "insurance" kicks in and pays either the balance or a 80/20 split..of the balance. This is why many doctors won't be accepting it and will close their practice if they are forced to take it. No money to be made. If you don't pay the monthly premium...you will pay a "penalty" of $2500 on your federal 1040 tax returns.
For some reason, Obama and the Dems think that if you are unemployed you will be able to afford ObamaCare. Most if working, can afford their own health insurance..those that can' afford it have no health insurance, therefore they will be forced to take ObamaCare..and if not working, they can't pay the monthly premium, so they will be penalized on their 1040's and if they don't pay it then..it just adds up with interest and penalties and then the IRS can sue them for it etc.
The whole thing is such a joke, I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to vote for it!
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
The government WANTS everyone to be beholden to THEM for healthcare. And Obamacare is the capstone on a century of working towards that goal.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
19 Nov 12
My moral imperative is to suggest to people that they put too much faith in someone who only practices medicine. They could probably save themselves a ton of money and their health if they ate right, exercised, and stopped popping so many pills. I wonder how many have destroyed their natural immune system by over medicating, or screwed up their brain by doing the same.
I also wonder how many doctors and hospitals do unnecessary test on patients, that bring medical cost up, out of fear they'll be sued for a mistake.
Who is most likely to abuse the system? Do they feel any moral obligation?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
You are correct in your thought process there bestboy.
We now have germs for which there is no cure thanks to the 'science of medicine'. Many wise doctors are returning to a more common sense approach to practicing medicine. And many people are doing just what you suggested, eating right, exercising, and using herbal and nutritional regimes for the every day ills of life.
There is a reason heart disease and metabolic diseases have increased astronomically. Our diets are defficient in the necessary nutrients and we over indulge in sugar,caffine and meat. All our grains are over processed and our soil is depleated of its minerals, therefore our food is lacking even when eaten fresh.So we wear out faster and our genetic predispositions are triggered.
We do need the medical profession, I'm not suggesting to do away with them entirely. But it isn't all about pills and surgery. It is about people taking responsibility for what they CAN do for themselves.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
19 Nov 12
It's not at all morality for a person who works hard their entire life to end up in court repeatedly and have their paycheck stolen and have to risk losing their home all because their genetic code promoted the buildup of bad cholesterol which resulted in a stent procedure to the tune of $25,000.
It's criminal to charge so damn much and to have the authority to force repayment, even if it costs the person every single thing they've ever worked hard for.
It's insanity.
I don't believe this particular government to be "moral" in any sense of the world. But I also see that we waste money on a lot of things that are vastly less important than healthcare.
People should be able to afford healthcare. And those unable to afford it should still receive it without the threat of losing everything.
All the nonsense about "bartering with doctors" and "save up your money" and "make better decisions" and "it's not in the Constitution" is where the hard right loses me completely.
Obamacare looks thus far as if it's going to suck. But if the other side weren't so hung up on itself, we could have got something better.
The right thing to do for everyone should always trump the minor gripes of the uberright.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
19 Nov 12
"Matersfish, are you suggesting the Republicans are responsible for Obamacare, and are you saying you can't stomach Republicans because they expect you to be responsible for yourself rather than leaning on the government crouch?
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
19 Nov 12
I'm saying neither one of those things.
And the fact that you could only come up with those two options when reading what I wrote brings this to mind: "The right thing to do for everyone should always trump the minor gripes of the uberright."
@lawdude (237)
• United States
20 Nov 12
I like the way you frame the issue.
We have a moral duty as a people or government to provide for the general welfare of the people of our country. . .flowing out of the ethical duty we know to promote good and rational behavior in our fellow man.
The moral dilemma of our time is the extent to which the ollective action of government should substitute individual moral conscience to enforce the individual welfare of people. How far should government go to promote our general welfare? Is it morally wrong for the government in an affluent country such as ours to overlook individuals who lack daily sustenance or adequate health care.
My own belief is we should not substitute collectve action for individual conscience to benefit society as a whole. There are limits on what government should do to promote our welfare just as there are limits on what the government can do to better the life of any individual.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
No system is perfect, but UNTIL the government stepped in with medicare and medicaid our healthcare system was able to provide for the poor without much fuss. Communities and churches provided for those who did not have the means, and those who did have the means paid their own way. I've listed some of the ways and also explained the surface problems (rising costs) caused by the AMA and big pharma and big agra (that has effected the NEED to rise in the population).
Government is not istituted to provide the daily needs for the majority of its people. If anything, general welfare means protection from law breakers and unscrupulous scounderals who cheat people out of their livlihood and property.
The individual is a moral agent, not a group or a government.