Yes, and it is self contradictory. If the new law costs extra money then what is the money being spent on? Guess what...it pays people. That means it creates jobs.

Well, maybe not. But it's stupid to argue that costs/taxes go way up without identifying what that extra money is spent on. In the case of medicine, almost all the money goes to labor in one form or another. That means either jobs are created or the existing health care workers make more money.

In addition, a lot more people will be covered/treated so the loss in productivity from sickness will be reduced. Bureaucratic costs for insurance companies may also go down.

But, as I said, I'm unconvinced about this law one way or another. I don't think the eventual outcomes are as simple as both sides make it seem. There is a lot more political fear mongering than actual analytical thinking going on. At least the law will allow more people to get treated and enjoy a better quality of life. I cannot understand why anyone argues against that.

I had the same reaction. He lost me at the "Canadians wait 23 hours to see a doctor" nonsense.

That is a common statement, that legal costs and defensive medicine are major cost drivers. Unfortunately it is plain wrong. There are numerous analyses regarding this claim and they all find that these costs are miniscule.

McDonalds and the cigarette companies cost us an order of magnitude more in health care costs.

I would guess that depends on how you count, and there are many that want you to count in ways these numbers seem "miniscule".

An american doctor might think a $5.000 X-ray is completely useless, but makes money selling it to you, and realise there is a one in 10.000 risk of getting sued if the control is not made and it turns out it should have been. That doctor will recomend you take that X-ray. That is 9.999 useless X-rays, costing insuranse companys or individuals about $50 million for no good reason.

This type of behaviour will not turn up as a cost of legal liability but obviously (partially) is. My guess is >2% of US GDP is squandered this way. That is all but miniscule.

How does a doctor make money "selling" you an X-ray?

In regards to the example and the claim it was absurd. Perhaps I should restate this law will create fewer jobs in the private sector and more jobs in the public sector. Okay let’s take Company Y - a company of exactly 50 people. That would be $37,500 in fines at the end of the year. I’m sure we could all agree that is an average (or below) starting salary in the U.S. This means I, as a student out of college for example, would not get this job in the private sector. Instead, what you’re saying is this job would be provided by the public sector (IRS). The issue here is the kind of job this would create. In my mind the job in the small business adds more value than the job with the IRS. Unless of course you’re in favor of big government. In which case I see your point that this will create jobs – in the public sector. Jobs that do not really produce anything useful, add little value to the economy, and will not go away once they’re approved by the government system.

In any case these are good questions:



First, I support Health Care Reform – Just not the socialist agenda. There are over 300 passages dealing with helping the poor in the Bible. I believe most Christians help the poor. My family does. In fact I wonder how many people who are Christians or claim to be Christians give 5-15% or more of their income to charity… I wonder what the numbers are for those who do not claim Christianity. Curious.

Second, one of the 10 Commandments is “Do not steal.” This law takes, or mandates, that all taxpaying Americans have to contribute or pay a tax towards this health care system. This means a free ride for how many people? And who will pay for this? There are many passages (I can think of about 50, many of them in Proverbs off the top of my head) in the Bible dealing with working and laziness. To give someone a free handout like this doesn’t solve the issues that a majority of lower income families in America, who live beyond their means, do not save, budget, or generally handle money well. Also the lack of exercise, proper diet, etc. among lower income families is astounding.

Third, as a Christian another issue I personally have with this is healthcare shouldn’t be the job of the government. This is about faith in people and the free market as opposed to government. For me it also about faith in God. As a citizen of the U.S and a Christian it is my privilege to help others. It should be a privilege of the churches and other non-profit organizations - not the government. I’ve lived in places with socialized medicine and trust me we do not want that here in the U.S. Where I spend my money in helping others should be my choice. To me this is a forced “charity” which I have no say in whether to contribute to it or elsewhere. This is a forced re-distribution of wealth. If the American government can mandate this what is next? This becomes a slippery slope.

Fourth, it is interesting that you would bring up my values considering that from my perspective (and your previous posts) nothing I say concerning the Bible will be received.

Fifth, not to mention the Planned Parenthood issue…

Sixth, how many people in the U.S. are already on welfare? Trust me I live around this and see it all the time in my neighborhood. I wonder how many people on this forum have ever been at or below the poverty level in the U.S. I work in this country for my income. I pay taxes. I came here at the age of 18 to pursue better education and a better life in the future for my family. However, many of my neighbors get free monthly checks from the government. A majority of my neighbors could probably work but rather live on food stamps and get a free ride. And don’t ask how many actually pay taxes… My concern is this law will just increase the amount of un-productive citizens in this country. This is one of the few countries in the world where poor people have air conditioning, cable, cell phones, free food (food stamps), housing at a discount (sometimes free??), and munch off of tax payers with a monthly check.



Perhaps I shouldn’t have used Canada as an example. It seemed fitting since it is America’s neighbor to the north. It was also an exaggeration. How about this: from experience I know in Brazil it takes an average of 9-15 hours for the free health care provided by the government in government run hospitals. The conditions in these free facilities are pathetic and the doctors/nurses are as well. The private hospitals takes about 1-3 hours and the quality is much better.

Bottom line is socialization of healthcare is not the answer.

Eagle, I think the mistake you're making is in looking at the fines/expense in isolation as an added cost to businesses. But there are other mitigating factors to consider. Let me touch on just two.

First of all, when an uninsured person arrives at a hospital needing acute care, they're not left to die on the front door step. The hospital provides care for them, and that cost spread across all taxpayers, including businesses. So they're already costing the system money - it's simply hidden in the tax code instead of more visibly on an insurance premium invoice.

Secondly, there's the notion that healthy workers are more productive, which impacts business' bottom lines. That is, if workers feel free to see healthcare practitioners for regular checkups and minor issues, they're less likely to let issues fester until they become impediments to doing their jobs. That translates to higher productively and net output for their employer.

Also, with all due respect, your notions on the state of healthcare in Canada are misinformed. Canada has some of the best healthcare in the world, and it's available to everyone. Why should it be your employer's job to provide your healthcare? Your employer should pay you to do a job. End of transaction. What you do with that money (like, say, buy health insurance) should be completely beyond the mandate of your employer. But since society overall has a stake in healthcare, I think it makes sense for government to play a role in ensuring everyone has access to critical and preventative care.

Unless your degree happened to be in, for example, nurse practioner, pharmaceuticals, radiation medicine, medical imaging, plasma collection, paramedic, physiotherapy and sports medicine, opthamology, hospital administration, accounting, human resources, or any other medical field. In those cases, this law is actually creating new jobs that previously wouldn't have existed, don't you agree?

I disagree on a fundamental level. I believe in a civilized society, everybody should be able to access quality health care, and the best way to mitigate that cost is to spread it over everyone.

What about education? Should education be socialized? How do you reconcile the belief that healthcare should be reserved for the wealthy, but education should be available to everyone? Or are you opposed to the socialization of education, too?

You'd probably be pretty surprised at my politics. I'm actually fairly conservative when it comes to finance and economics. I generally don't like welfare but I do think we need a safety net. I'd prefer some sort of "workfare" system.

But alas, I do believe that full scale socialized medicine is the only real answer, at least to provide a minimum level of care. Once you do that it creates all sorts of healthy public incentives like improving health, fitness, and diet. But that's just my personal opinion.

I have also lived in a European country with socialized medicine. It worked great, partly because people did not abuse it as much as here. I can attest to what Mr. Northern Light is trying to explain to you.

So you think churches should be in charge of health care? What about mosques? Synagogues? Wiccan temples? And what about those who chose not to practice a religion? Should we be able to tell you which services you are allowed to have? It's a slippery slope my friend.

I guess the planned parenthood issue has something to do with you objecting to the health care services they provide to men and women who might not have the same religious beliefs as you. So I guess putting the churches in charge would make you pretty happy so that those that disagree with you won't be able to get the care they desire. Because I don't know what issue you could be referring to unless freedom is now something you object to.

I mentioned your beliefs because your stance seems to be in conflict to what those beliefs are. It is almost as if someone has told you what position you should take on this political issue and you have failed to think critically about it.

In the end, whether the US should have some form of socialized medicine is a matter of opinion, and you are free to have yours. I happen to think that we need to go in that direction, not because I like it but because it is the only way that has any chance of working here. I would support your right to disagree with me.

But the "facts" you are stating are anything but true and others have also called you to task. They are the ridiculous hyperbole of the extreme right wing. Repeatedly stating these things so that they seem true might work on stupid people, like the US electorate, but I would hope that you would do a little bit of personal research to verify your information before forming your opinion and before using that misinformation to support your view here. Because if you truly believe the things you are saying then you have not done your research!

But they also don't pay taxes. Roughly 50% of the US population doesn't pay any net federal income tax at all (those same low-income earners). So aren't those folks "stealing" or getting a "free ride" every time they use public roads they didn't pay for, or buy groceries with food stamps they got for free, or enjoy the safety of a neighborhood patrolled by police they're not paying for, or send their (numerous) kids to schools they haven't chipped in for?

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but if one of your objections to socialized healthcare is the idea that people will be getting "something for nothing," then there are dozens of equally offensive examples which would (in my opinion) quickly drive you toward Libertarianism.

Thanks for these two examples and for your cordial tone. I see your point and concede there are other factors outside the taxes to consider. However, please tell me do you believe adding more government will actually decrease the cost of healthcare?



Please see comment below. I was trying to use another country as an example Canada was the first one that came to mind. No offense was intended.



And no it shouldn't be the role of the government in my opinion to make sure everyone has access to health care. It should be left up to the individual. Let me give you an example: I went without health insurance from 2000-2008. I had few doctors visits (paid out of pocket) and saved a ton by not having insurance. I was a healthy individual, exercised often, ate healthy, and loved the fact that I didn't have to pay the insurance. (Through Blue Cross Blue Shield fore example coverage would've been average $200 or more a month; I saved over $21,600 by not having insurance; Instead, I paid less than $1000 in the few doctor's visits I made during that time.) After getting married things changed and I thought it better to have insurance. But at the time it was my choice. Unfortunately this will no longer be an option come 2014 unless something changes...

A tax isn't theft. See Mark 12:17.

I don't believe adding more government ever decreased the cost of anything. But for a modest increase in costs, extending coverage to the 30 million currently uninsured people is a worthwhile value proposition, in my opinion.

Consider it from an accounting perspective. When you spread both the cost and risk over a large pool of people, the net cost on a per-individual basis is decreased. It's the same principle that makes annuities worthwhile, while still profitable for insurance companies. While some people may live to very old age and collect more than they've paid in in premiums, statistically more people will die earlier on having paid in more than they'd collected.

But this only works with a large pool of people. The bigger the pool, the lower the risk for the insurer. Likewise with health insurance. The more people in the pool, the closer the actual results will mirror the statistical model, and the less risk is shouldered by the insurer. This means they need fewer cash reserves, which means a lower profit margin, which saves money on a per-person basis. But the larger total number of plan participants means more profit for the insurer, even though the profit-per-member is slightly less.



I'd still love to hear your opinion on socialized education. If it's up to the individual to obtain their own access to health care, should it also be up to parents to obtain their own access to education for their children? Should poor kids be excluded from the public school system if their parents have paid no net income tax?



Right. Meanwhile, another uninsured fellow ate equally healthy and exercised even more than you, but got T-boned by a drunk driver one night. Both he and the drunk driver, like you, believed "insurance" is a personal choice, and they "chose" to save the $1,000/year and were driving uninsured. He required $65,000 in surgeries, which drove him into bankruptcy. The balance was paid for by taxpayers.

You got lucky, he didn't. That's the only difference. In the blink of an eye, your luck can change, and that $21,600 you "saved" becomes meaningless. It's a gamble, one big actuarial table, and you happened to come out ahead. Others came out behind. Obamacare simply seeks to level the field so nobody has to worry about one bad day ruining them financially.

According to some statistics, more than 60 percent of US bankruptcies are because of medical bills. That strikes me as a problem. That tells me that being uninsured is a high-risk proposition. If you win (like you did), you come out healthy with a few extra dollars. But if you lose, it's complete financial ruin. That seems like a lot of stress to me.

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now this may be a matter of interpretation, but universal healthcare does seem to fall into the category of promoting the general welfare.