Comments on: Opponents of Health Care Reform Are Child Killers

By: Why do health care reform opponents like to ration health care in the way they do? | Health Care

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:04:26 +0000

[...] » Opponents of Health Care Reform Are Child Killers Liberal Values [...]

By: Stephanie Hunter

Stephanie Hunter — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:34:17 +0000

@OurCareSource WOW, great find! -->Provocative article makes some good points about the public option! http://cli.gs/t4Edgu

[Original tweet, Topsy page]

By: OurHealthCareSource

OurHealthCareSource — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:25:12 +0000

Provocative article makes some good points about the public option! http://cli.gs/t4Edgu

[Original tweet, Topsy page]

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:42:38 +0000

I’ll add my two cents again, just because my view of government is so completely different from Fritz’s.

While there is always going to be ‘authority’ associated with government because the people who actually make the decisions will always have de facto power, government should not be about ‘authority.’ Government is the means by which the people of a civil society administer society and the venue in which they address the needs of society. Government is, or should be, an ongoing conversation rather than a ruling body. We simply elect delegates to communicate on our behalf because of the massive difficulty of having a truly democratic discussion.

The ideal aside, someone will always be in charge because that is the nature of the beast. There’s no getting around it. As long as there has to be someone in charge, they better stay out of my bedroom and do right by the little guy who can’t do right by himself.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:34:34 +0000

Those really aren’t the choices. Supporting a government role for financing health care is not the same as believing government should handle food, shelter, or even the delivery of health care. The role for government is those things which the market cannot handle. This includes stopping violence but is not necessarily limited to this. This also includes a role in the financing of health care. The market is not able to handle this, at least without major government regulation, and every industrialized country in the world has found it necessary to utilize government here. The United States has used government the least here, and has one of the worst health care delivery systems in the industrialized world.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:20:59 +0000

It’s a fundamental difference on the core belief about what government is around for. If you believe that government is supposed to handle all general problems, then, yeah, you go for government providing food and shelter and medical care and people getting hurt feelings and all that. If you believe government is only the section of society that can legitimately initiate force then you tend to believe it should be limited to stopping violence and people have to deal with the rest of the laundry list of life issues themselves.
It’s only marginally open to debate because it really is a difference founded on core principles.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:01:34 +0000

Sure, if charity would take care of the problem this would be preferable. The reason the government gets involved is that charity cannot be relied upon to handle such problems.

I wish they were not addressing coverage for the poor by expanding Medicaid. At least the legislation does call for increasing Medicaid payments to the same level as Medicare for primary care services.

This should improve access but won't entirely solve the problem. Even if primary care services are paid the same, I'm sure that many procedures done in primary care offices (such as EKG's, basic lab) won't be included in the pay hikes making total reimbursement still lower for Medicaid patients.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:19:53 +0000

‘I don’t know about conservatives. But, yeah, you can put me down in that list if the alternative is government taxes and mandates.’

I’m going to go way out on a limb and say this is the conservative answer to your question across the board, Ron.

‘Of course, I am perfectly willing to consider adding a “provide health care to poor children” organization to my list of charities.’

And this is what they will all say to feel better about it.

I’ve always been fascinated at the tremendous lack of understanding of the scope and power of private charity on the right.

Now, in most states, children are automatically eligible for Medicaid even if their parents are not. But Ron has written on more than one occasion about Medicaid’s weaknesses. My father was an eligibility worker for MediCal in California, so I know what he’s talking about.

This is really insurance reform and not health care reform, but it addresses the most necessary aspects of insurance reform. I have mostly resigned myself to settling for insurance reform and continuing to work for health care reform.

By: HealthCareShake (HealthCare Shake-Up )

HealthCareShake (HealthCare Shake-Up ) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:34:07 +0000

#HealthCareShake » Opponents of Health Care Reform Are Child Killers Liberal Values http://tinyurl.com/yjkt6pw

By: HealthCare Shake-Up

HealthCare Shake-Up — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:34:07 +0000

#HealthCareShake » Opponents of Health Care Reform Are Child Killers Liberal Values http://tinyurl.com/yjkt6pw

[Original tweet, Topsy page]

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:47:06 +0000

I don’t know about conservatives. But, yeah, you can put me down in that list if the alternative is government taxes and mandates.
Of course, I am perfectly willing to consider adding a “provide health care to poor children” organization to my list of charities.