"Prior to the Obama intiative, there was no discussion AT ALL about health care.
During eight years of the Bush presidency there was NO discussion regarding the spiraling menace of health care "costs." "
There has always been discussion to a greater or lesser degree of increasing health care costs. Part of that discussion included the effect of government intrusion into health care and it's effect on driving up costs, as well as frivolous lawsuits, restrictions on what insurance companies can offer, requirements on insurance companies regarding what they *must* offer, etc.
Nice work though, slipping in a 'blame Bush' line...
"-The Obama presidency is the first presidency in decades to make any progress at all on this subject."
Action is not necessarily progress.
"-The Obama presidency is the first administration to even have a serious discussion on the subject."
You cannot say that with any intellectual honesty. There has been no debate on this, anyone not in agreement with this government takeover has been shouted down, disregarded, ridiculed, denigrated, and even threatened with prosecution. The legislation was written behind closed (and even LOCKED) doors, usually with only Democrats in attendance. The voice of the people, the majority of whom oppose this plan, has been ignored. Republican amendments offered to any version of the plan have been unilaterally rejected.
Where exactly has the honest and open debate been?
"-This much maligned administration has started a national debate, obtained a starting point, and moved the conversation forward in the face of "just say no" opponents to any action; any conversation at all. These "just say no" opponents would let thousands DIE every year for lack of health care - just so that they get their "way." "
Reference my last point, rather than liberal talking points. Republicans have offered a number of mechanisms to reduce costs without bringing down the whole system (the system 85% of americans say they are satisfied with). "The party of No" is one of those methods described above of closing down real debate and denigration those that oppose the plan.
By the way, Medicare has a 20% rate of refusing treatment, compared to about 2% for private insurers. So who is it that is letting more people die?
"-There are massive "costs to leaving millions uninsured:
--uninsured workers miss thousands of work days, costing the economy millions;
Uninsured workers more commonly simply work while sick, rather than lose pay and put their jobs at risk. Meanwhile, wasn't it the federal government that mandated to employers that they must grant a certain number of sick days per year to employees....?
--uninsured families end up in emergency rooms, needing ridiculously expensive treatment for "emergency" care CREATED by our inability to figure out how to get them basic treatment for illnesses like the flu;
On the argument that we're paying through higher prices for emergency room care for the uninsured, isn't this plan simply transferring that payment from medical costs into taxation so the government can instead pay the same fees? Absolutely no money wil be saved there - more likely we'll pay a bit more, since the government will undoubtedly take a cut of those monies to pay for the bureaucracy required by the new system.
By the way, there is no real treatment for the flu, you get it, and treat the symptoms until it runs it's course. Seeing a doctor for it won't shorten it's duration by a single hour....and people aren't getting $25,000 of medical care in emergency rooms for a case of the flu.
"--uninsured children do not learn well"
???????? Were you serious.....?
"--uninsured patients who are forced into bankruptcy deprive hospitals/doctors of fees - they have to charge the rest of us to make up the difference."
Again, you're just changing who we pay these extra costs to. If we aren't paying them in higher medical costs, the plan will have us paying the government for those higher medical costs. The only difference is we'll be paying every time we pay taxes, instead of if and when we need medical care. It's a shell game.
"--uninsured patients who are forced into bankruptcy no longer pay taxes, lose their savings, lose their dignity - a loss for all of us."
It's also a lesson to all of us, to plan for the future and carry insurance instead of buying that plasma TV, or putting $10,000 worth of chrome wheels and tires on our SUV. If people choose to forego insurance, and to live beyond their means, the risk of bankruptcy is the penalty. Taking away that penalty will only encourage more of the same, creating more of the false need for the government to take care of us as though we cannot care for ourselves.
One point the "debate" has determinedly ignored, is that of the 10 to 12 million who actually want insurance and can't afford it, the government could simply BUY them a policy, and pay out a pittance of the 2.5 TRILLION that this plan is budgeted to spend (and government entitlement plans NEVER go above what they're estimated to cost, do they....?)
On the other hand, by your argument, if I choose not to be insured, I have a right to use your money to get health care.
When can I expect your check?
Source : https://reason.com/archives/2009/12/23/there-aint-no-such-thing-as-a930