As a conservative, one of the pillars of my value system is personal responsibility. I believe that every man (and of course woman), is responsible for their own actions. I believe that the responsibility to support ourselves and our families falls to the individual. In my opinion, self reliance is what gave birth to this nation and what makes it what it is today; the greatest nation on earth. It seems that somehow along the way these concepts have been lost. There is a loud segment of the population that has devalued personal responsibility and self reliance to the point that they are looked at as some kind of relics of a lost era.
These voices have become increasingly louder with the current economic downturn and the health insurance reform debate. The economic downturn we find ourselves in is due in large part to a lack of personal responsibility. For example, the sub-prime mortgage mess. How could any adult with all of their faculties think that its a good idea to take on a $300,000 mortgage on a $40,000 a year salary? Of course the house eventually falls in to foreclosure and the homeowner says "It's not my fault, I didn't know what I was signing!" Along comes the government to pat them on the head and say "Poor borrower, of course it's not your fault, we'll modify your loan with taxpayer dollars and punish that mean banker that made you do this." Maybe I've missed something but every mortgage I've ever seen has a clause, signed by the borrower, stating that they understand the terms and conditions of the loan. If someone buys a house they can't afford it is 100% their fault. It sickens me that so many of these people blame the lender and expect the governments help. It sickens me even more that the federal government is willing to spend my hard earned tax dollars on someone who took out a loan for 10 times their annual salary. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Next issue, health insurance reform. I think my ears are going to bleed if I have to hear one more time that we need to have a public option or some form of government sponsored plan for people who can't afford insurance. The responsibility to care for your family resides with you. If you can't afford your employer's plan, find a new employer with a more competitive plan, cut out excess spending, or take on a second job. Simply asking the federal government to provide it for you, with tax dollars, is lazy and passes the buck. Each thing that we ask someone else to provide for us takes a little piece of our independence. (I do acknowledge the need for such programs as medicaid but I believe they should be state-run and have time limits to urge recipients to become more self reliant.).
I'll leave you with a quote from an unlikely source.
" ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country"
Pres. John F. Kennedy
That's all for know, I'm in the mood to go chop some wood and plow a field!
-Jay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If what you say is true, then you are against the military, schools, fire dept, police, roads, parks, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that even though personal responsibility is paramount, and I deeply believe that it is, there are still some essential needs that even the most responsible person can't provide for himself. That's the entire purpose of government -- to fill that void. And with 40 million uninsured, and 70 million under-insured, health care clearly falls in that category.
Private health care has failed us. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. And you know what's worse? 60% of those bankruptcies are filed by people who have insurance.
Universal health care is cheaper, more humane, and contrary to some beliefs, increases freedom and liberty. (You aren't very free when you're sick but can't get treatment because your insurance company denied your claim).
This article does a great job of explaining the absurdity of privatized health care: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/scott-mclarty-fire-departments-and-health-care/
Don't worry, I won't pester you like this on every post!
ReplyDeleteWe have three jobs between the two of us (with Scott attending school and me taking care of a newborn)and we still can't afford health insurance that will pay for maternity. All the private insurance plans we look at provide us with this depressing result - maternity coverage = none. Guess we have to wait until Scott finishes school (in two to three years) to have another kid. I could look for a (non-existent) part-time job that provides health insurance or put Lucy in day care. I don't want Scott to drop out of school. So we DO need help right now. And private insurance companies are NOT providing that for us. I am definitely willing to pay for my health insurance, but I also have to be able to afford other costs of living. And I haven't found anything yet that will allow me to receive coverage for maternity. If you can find reasonable private insurance for us that will pay for maternity or a job for either of us (in our current school and newborn baby situation) that will provide adequate health insurance, I'll consider your statements. :)
ReplyDeleteScott always tells me not to get involved in these conversations :) Sorry Scott!
I think I can respond to everyone in one shot here. Red, the problem with your fire fighter argument is that it relies on a false dichotomy. The fallacy in your logic comes when you assert that fire departments are a basic need and government sponsored, therefore health insurance should be government sponsored as well. If this is the case, where does it end? Food and shelter are basic needs, following your logic the government should provide all people three hots and a cot. The other fallacy is that all the services you mentioned above are provided by local or state governments aside from the military which congress has the enumerated power to raise from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If the federal government tried to enforce a national fire department on every municipality or supervise local parks I certainly would have a problem with that. Also, do we really need to break down the 40 million uninsured figure? Finally do you believe that no one would be denied care under a government plan? It happens everyday under socialized medicine. In fact France is steadily moving away from their single payer system because it isn't working on top of it being crushingly expensive. What would explain the flood of Canadians coming across the border for care because the waiting list is simply too long for chemotherapy and other necessary treatment?
ReplyDeleteMoving on, Scott and Chels, I certainly can sympathize with your situation. I lost my job when Amy was pregnant with Jack and we had to pay $542.36 a month to continue coverage with COBRA. Believe me we did not have the money and to this day I have no idea how we did it.
I am also not naive enough to say that our current system is perfect. I do believe that reform is needed. I simply disagree that the answer is to give the federal government control over my family's health care. Have you been in a VA Hospital? I have, and as the only example of government run health care we have, count me out. The reforms I support include Tort Reform, Plan Portability, and Health Savings Accounts. I believe that there are ways to improve the current system, without destroying it, that will make health insurance more affordable.
I love all you guys and respect your opinion, I just respectfully disagree.
P.S. We saw the video's of Lucy on Youtube, CUTE!
Good day . . . I said GOOD DAY!
Ok, last comment, I promise. I would LOVE to see health care reform in any way. I'm just not convinced that for-profit private insurance companies are going to be responsible enough for that. I'm thinking a non-mandatory government program (not a single payer) could help people like us and maybe offer some standards that change the way private companies run their business.
ReplyDeleteAs far as personal responsibility. It's very easy to have personal responsibility when you are born a white (male) person into an upper middle class home that provides you with love as well as your basic needs. Others aren't so lucky and may have a more difficult time having personal responsibilty after being born into, say, poverty or a drug infested home. Or after experiencing years of sexual or physical abuse. Or suffering from mental or physical illness. Or simply just someone with a lower intelligence. And I'm not just talking about the obviously disabled but those who just don't have it as easily as others and need a little more help. Personal responsibility does not come as easily to others. Yes, they can overcome these obstacles (especially with me as their therapist :) Ha, ha.) but it's difficult. Not as easy as it may come to me or you. So maybe some of these government run programs are not "fair," but what's really fair in life? Can we judge how everyone should behave and how successful everyone should be at having personal responsibilty based only on our own life experiences? ok. done.
I'm glad you liked Lucy's videos (on a lighter note) :) There's a new one of her smiling.
Well, this is certainly the hot-button issue. I guess I better thrown in my two cents.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I think we can all agree that the current system is deeply flawed. Too many people are dying and going broke because of it. The real problem here (and its the same with most other issues) is that pragmatism gets pushed aside in favor of competing idealogies and, lets face it, money. Republican political interests are too closely aligned with the interests of big businesses like health insurance companies. After all, they pay the bills. Democrats, on the other hand, are beholden to certain groups as well, like trial lawyers. It takes ungodly amounts of money to run for office, so who wants to alienate donors? The result is that the absolute most sensible solution almost never comes out of congress. With healthcare, I'm a a proponent of the public option, but let's put that aside. I'm open to other ways of dealing with the massive problem (people dying and going broke while the rest of us keep having to pay more money for less services to subsidize the whole thing) but true compromise with the general public's best interests at heart is almost unheard of in Washington. We just need to come up with something that works! Something that controls costs and takes care of people. First let me nail the Republicans: I believe they are more worried about protecting health industry profits and deraling Obama than fixing the problem. But, this one's for you Jay, I also believe Democrats are doing us a disservice by refusing to touch tort reform and other issues that go against the liberal grain. I'm also with you, Jay, on the idea that plans should be portable. I think most people in either party will agree that the current employer-based system isn't all that logical. In fact, we got here basically by accident after World War II when wages were frozen so companies attracted people by piling on the benefits. It caught on, and now its the norm. But it doesn't make sense. Republicans love entrepeneurship and the innovation bred through competition, but with the current system its very difficult to leave a job with benefits to start some new venture. It undermines the American spirit of industry and invention. Also, why do we think GM and Chrysler sunk? They were paying for ridiculously lavish benefits packages. As the economy becomes increasingly global, and US companies enter into direct competition with foreign businesses who aren't saddled with healthcare costs for their workers, we'll lose. The other big issue is the balooning cost of healthcare. People have been having babies since the dawn of time, usually for free. Why does it cost 20 grand now? We have to find a way, sticking with the vernacular of the moment, to bend the cost curve. I would like to see an affordable government-run option simply because a group that big would have the bartering power to control costs. I worry that so-called co-ops wouldn't have the clout. But again, I'm open to other solutions. What I won't stand for is the government requiring everyone to buy coverage then paying to send everyone over to the existing insurance companies. Why give them the gift? I really don't think its rocket science either. I believe whole-heartedly that if we could somehow create a panel (what the Senate is supposed to be) of 100 of the brightest people in this country, people who didn't have to raise campaign money and show up at town hall meetings and endure attack ads, they'd be able to come up with a solution that nearly everyone could get onboard with. (This is purely hypothetical, of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't elect our officials (it's essential that we do) but we do have to figure out how to get them working for us, not for their own reelection bids.
I'm out,
Rack him!
Sorry, one last point. Jay, I'm curious to know how you feel about the current debate regarding stripping the insurance companies of the anti-trust exempt status. I'm no expert here, but isn't this something we can all cheer? I know trust-busting is a form of regulation which you may on principle oppose, but this will only foster competition and help us avoid collusion and price-fixing which will ultimately lead to better deals and overall lower costs. I know we probably have different ideas of where the "sweet spot" is, but I think we can agree that the regulation vs. deregulation issue is all about finding it. Finding that space where businesses can grow and flourish but there's still room for new competition to come in and shake things up. We all love Monopoly the game (which I am the best at in this family, by the way) but we don't want to see it in real life.
ReplyDeleteYou ask, "where does it end?" referring to government "interference" in the private sector. I would ask you the same thing about big insurance getting fat off of denying sick people's claims. How on earth is that a form of business that anyone could support? And what about CEO salaries? Hey, the free market takes care of itself right? Not exactly. In 1970 the average CEO made 25 times that of a production worker. By 2000 that had risen to 90 times. Where does it end? Without government "interference" the free market is utterly unsustainable. That fact is no more prevalent than in health care.
ReplyDeleteAnd your argument about the VA only works anecdotally. The facts tell a different story. The VA, while deserving of it's reputation 10-15 years ago, has since become the highest-quality healthcare provider in the United States. They're clinics and hospitals rank #1 in customer satisfaction and are more technologically advanced than the average private facility. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238,00.html
Tell me again, why is public health care bad? you talk about France's system being crushingly expensive yet the US pays almost twice as much and gets half the benefit. How's that for crushing? And you talk about Canadians coming here for health care, but you neglected to mention the flood of Americans that go Canada for care (including many doctors).
Don't get me wrong, I think the private sector has a place. America wouldn't be what it is without entrepreneurship, but the same is true about a strong central government to protect the consumer and in some cases provide a service that would be irrational to leave in private hands. Like Scott, I think we can strike an appropriate balance between private business and government services. And every indication is that we're not there yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteRegarding removing the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption . . .
I have done some pretty extensive research including reading the original Bill that grants the exemption (The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945) and the current Bill that proposes to remove the exemption (H.R. 3596). First, it is not a full anti-trust exemption as we see in Major League Baseball. It provides a very limited exemption to the federal anti-trust laws. There are two main exemptions. The first is that it allows insurance companies to share information with each other regarding dollar loss amounts in Federally declared disaster areas. The second is that it standardized policy language throughout the industry. Standardizing policy language between companies ensures that you can accurately compare policies from different companies. In my estimation the original law granting the exemption actually benefits consumers. The propaganda being delivered by the left that the insurance industry is exempt from federal anti-trust laws and is highly unregulated is simply false. The insurance industry is actually one of the most regulated industries we have. The current legislation has all the drippings of a punitive bill propose by the left because the insurance companies won't fall in line.
One last myth to dispel before I go. Eric, you say "big insurance getting fat off of denying sick people's claims". It must have been divinely inspired timing but just today I ran in to an article that addresses this very myth. It is even an AP article (trust me I'm just as shocked as you that the AP printing something that is contrary to the party line!). The title of the article, "FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat". Here's an excerpt "Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries" YUM brands( Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC) had an 8.5% profit margin. Why is no one saying that they're getting fat off giving people heart attacks and clogged arteries? Here's the link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_fact_check_health_insurance
In conclusion, I like Scott's idea of finding the "sweet spot". I too understand and believe that industries must be regulated. Actually the best idea I've heard recently is to repeal the law that keeps small businesses from forming a larger group in order to negotiate lower premiums. Couple this along with tort reform that will lower malpractice insurance premiums, in turn lowering patient costs, and you have a much better system.
WAR Elephants
Guys with pipes and
Capitalism
UnWar Donkeys
Socialism
Showing up to a party dressed like your mom
Now I'm done, good night now!