AND THE NEW HEALTH CARE LAW
"Obamacare", WHAT DETERMINES
YOUR HEALTH MORALITY?
I listened to a lady on one of the news
networks explain how her support for the new healthcare legislation was
almost solely based upon moral grounds. I suppose that a lot of People
feel the same way. You know the idea that it is wrong to allow some folk
to go without health insurance.
They call it Obamacare. It's name after
it's most ardent backer.
Let’s look at the moralities involved
in the health care argument as it relates to Obamacare as well as Obamacare's
aim, single payer government insurance.
If the point is that because health care
is something everyone needs, therefore we must all pay for it for everyone
else; then I have a question. Is health care any more needed than Food?
Should we all supply food to everyone else regardless of their own efforts?
You know in the Bible, the basis of the
morality for most Americans, it states that, “if anyone refuses to work,
neither should he eat.” Now according to the Bible, that is moral and
if someone would take their money to do the opposite, that would
What if you have 10 people and 8 of them
did all that they could to earn a living for their family and to have
money to pay the doctors who threat them, would it be moral for someone
to take their gain that they acquired from hard work and pay for the other
2 lazy people? Certainly not! To think otherwise is to say that each of
us own that which our neighbors have earned. This is socialism. This is
redistribution of wealth.
Now not everyone who lacks something
is lazy. Some are lazy but others just made different choices. Others,
like us all, are in consciously or unconsciously chosen circumstances
of the moment.
Children could grow up under similar
circumstances and one chooses to be a doctor and another just want to
have fun and enjoy life and chooses to work for themselves but just enough
to survive comfortably. Another may want to become the largest computer
manufacturer. Each may achieve their desire. Who has a right to take from
the one to give to the other? There would be absolutely no moral basis
for doing so unless your morals emanated from the ideals that brought
about the Soviet Union or Cuba which are diametrically opposed to those
of Historical Judeo-Christian Ideology.
There is a moral basis for each individual
to make an assessment of whom and when he or she must help; Knowing, at
least from a biblical perspective that they are required to make those
Now most people should know by now that
in President Obama’s own words, he wants a single payer system and that
the law passed is a great foundation for the same. It puts the control
of the healthcare market into the hands of the Federal Government. In
the law it says more than 2000 times that the Secretary of health shall
do this or that.
It seeks to control what doctors get
paid, what insurance Companies get paid, who gets healthcare and under
what restrictions. In fact under the new law the insurance Companies have
become agents of the Federal Government. This places the Federal Government
into a position to kill the insurance companies over the years. This is
exactly what the President was caught saying in a video in the past.
The President has already begun to demonize
the insurance Companies and few people have the guts to correct him. The
insurance Companies that he spoke about that raised their insurance rates
35 to 45% didn’t mount an effective campaign to say, “Hey the State of
California dumped about 1/3 of the people that were covered by the government
on us and we had to raise our rates.” Maybe they were afraid. Maybe the
media just didn’t report it much. Either way, was what the president did,
without telling the whole truth, moral? No. The ease with which he did
it is astonishing.
Allow me to use you, MR and MS. READER
as an example:
You see people who end up at some point
in life not being able to pay for certain health care procedures and being
in need of charity to pay for them. You decide to look at certain
demographics and studies. You see only a certain number of people get
seriously sick. You figure
out the projected cost of all that care. You know that the average insurance
company makes a profit between 2.2 to 4% on all money collected.
You make an offer to the general healthy
population. You might say," 35% will get some serious condition during their
life. These conditions could cost 10s of thousand to some millions
of dollars, therefore if you and 10,000 others pay my company a certain
amount, I will guarantee that if it happens to you, we will pay for it.
Now in order for our calculations to be correct, it is necessary for you
to tell us the truth about your health and health history".
So as a Company over the years you pay
out millions. You make about 3% profit.
Now what if you are paying out hundreds
of thousands of dollars and find out that the person that you are paying
for actually had cancer when he purchased insurance from you. The person
lied to you. What do you do? To accept too much of this will destroy your
business and endanger the honest people who are also paying you. What
if some politician came around and demanded that instead of insurance
against the possibility of something happening to your clients' health
in the future, you must take all those already sick and pay their millions
of dollars cost, even if they have not paid anything in? Would it
be moral for the President to make like you have done something wrong
if he cannot show that you have? Would it be wrong for him to force
you to pay all these and not allow you to raise insurance rates enough
for the extra cost? If he restricts you enough, your days as the insurer
will be numbered. To stay afloat you will go along with the government
which now controls you and will regulate to give even less treatment to
spread the care around.
In fact, the system has you by the throat
and will have morphed into the government option with the added effect
of over time putting as many of the insurance companies out of business
as it chooses.
Our President therefore has been immoral
in this matter. It is not that insurance companies have never done wrong,
but that he accused all and did not tell the TRUTH about preconditions
and their relationship to real insurance. Insurance is made against the
possibility of bad health in the future and not a welfare system that
it will become. He has made others to support him in this deception. That
Is it moral to claim that even universal
care takes care of everyone? It is moral only if the statement is true.
Before we look at other immoralities that are involved with single payer
and other socialist health contraptions, let’s look at the system that
we still have but are moving away from.
In the Old Testament the poor were considered
the responsibility of each individual as his conscience dictated. Farmers
for instance, were not to harvest the last corners of their fields but
to leave that for the poor. It was kind of a safety net, which is the
like model to our system before the new law started taking us away from
it. Of course the people were free and also encouraged to give help to
an organization or individuals as they saw fit.
This made certain that each person understood
that they only had a RIGHT to reap what they sowed and their well being
was first and foremost their own responsibility. This is the modern idea
of teaching people to fish as oppose to constantly feeding them and thereby
harming them, which would be immoral.
In our health care system that the Obama
administration has set on a path of altering from the Old Testament model,
anyone needing health care can get it. They can get it quickly.They get
by and large the same treatments that the rich would receive. The treatment
for cancer is the treatment for cancer.
In a single payer system or even a hybrid
system on it’s way to single payer, there will be problems that absolutely
everybody should already know about. There are all sorts of documentation
from countries which are trying these things. Let’s look at some and see
just how moral those types of systems are.
1. Contrary to our present system where
everyone can get timely treatment, in government controlled health systems,
this is not the case. In fact, we know that in the systems that exist,
long lines and delayed coverage means that the health treatment is not
timely. In some cases people die. They traded health care just to replace
it with health insurance. Is this moral? For those people who know what
is happening every where that this is tried, yes it would be immoral to
wish this on anyone. Many of those who don’t know it don’t wish to know.
The facts are there. Their belief in a Socialist theorical model
that makes everyone equal, even if worse off, is appealing to them.
As was pointed out by By David Hogberg
in an article entitled “The Myths of
Single-Payer Health Care”
“Media in foreign nations are full of
stories about people suffering while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane
Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart
attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her
cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to
have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost
50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation
to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting
over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in
These are not mere anecdotes. Much
academic literature has examined the impact of waiting lists on health.
A study in
the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50 people died while
on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario. A study of
Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery found that the "risk
of death increases significantly with waiting time." In a 2000 article in
the journal Clinical Oncology, British researchers studying 29 lung cancer
patients waiting for treatment further found that about 20 percent "of
potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list."
In fact a friend of mine in Canada,
whose wife has been suffering from severe cancer called me from Zurich.
He had to leave a serious business adventure to go back to Canada faster
than he had expected. What he said was unforgettable, “I have to get herto
a private doctor. Here the wait in the health system in Canada will take
another 9 months and she will be dead then!” In the US, she would have
been treated almost immediately.
2. Is it moral if 80% of healthcare cost
is from the 20% who need catastrophic care? These include the elderly
and those with very serious conditions like cancer. These are the first
to die because of the delays cause by an unnecessary system? There is
no reason that this must be other than giving more power to bureaucrats
and making some feel that there is an equality of treatment. To choose
to inadvertently kill off the 20 percent of the very sick to make
the 70% happy and save money is immoral.
The Five year survival rate for American
women with breast cancer is 83.9%. The rate in Great Britain is 69.7.
The five year survival rate in American men for prostate cancer is 91.9.
It is 73.7% in France and 51.1% in Great Britain. Men and women with colon
cancer is 35% more likely to survive in the United States.
Morality is not as the President is known
to have said about some severely sick elderly that, “Maybe they should
just take a pill.” I am not saying that the President and others know
that they are wrong. I am saying that it is immoral for those that know
these facts and there is no reason why they shouldn't know.
3. Is it moral to tell people we must
put everyone under this system because it will be cheaper to cover an
extra 30 million more people with insurance than is covered now, without
rationing? How could it logically become cheaper? How could this not cause
rationing like it has everywhere else? How could anyone who know these
facts live with themselves? How can they do this and leave out 15 million
people that are not covered under the new law, if they believe that it
is immoral to leave people uncovered?
4. All these systems, as has been shown
by various studies stifle innovations that save lives and the quality
of health for all. From whom are these facts hidden? The information
is publically available. Is it moral to hide your eyes and do harm in
the name of doing well?
When you demonize the profit as being
a motivation for doing evil instead of good, you resign yourself to the
belief that most things accomplished
are from altruism. This is never more
than a false assumption. The failure to understand this is the main reason
for the failure of socialism. Even the person who believes God exist must
next believe that he is a rewarder of those that seek to please him or
they will do nothing of the sort.
If you take time to look at the early
history of this country, you may be surprised by the number of experiments
into socialism. There were many dozens of societies of about 1600
to 2500 people or more trying varying degrees of socialism. Some went
so far as to have all things in common, even the husbands and wives. That
is every man was the husband of all women and every woman was the wife
of all men. Most of this happened before 1850. Some of the leaders were
extremely popular on both sides of the ocean BUT THEY ALL FAILED.
Most of those people, like the well meaning
people today who want single Payer, including the President, suffered
from an inability to see straight. What is disconcerting is that no amount
of evidence shown turns many of them from this delusion. This begs the
question, is helping people the real reason that they want to do this?
For the first time in the history of
this country the Federal Government demands that you buy a commodity.
This is a violation of the fundamental concept of the freedom passed on
to us from the founding fathers. Yet there are those that it seeks to
exempt from various sections of the mandates. These exemptions go to those
who are supporters of the democrat party.
Therefore, not only are the concepts
involved fraught with immoral judgments but the result of its provisions
promotes immoral dealings and effects immoral outcomes. So, if I
see another person sitting still as the supporters of this legal error,
spout its propaganda of being moral, I will have reason to mark that person
sitting still as someone just trying to benefit from public backlash.
That person certainly will not have understood the matter nor perceived
the foundations of true morality.
Learn the secrets of the ages
Subcribe: Go to White Houese url; bottom of article
USA search engine
Make money of everything
blog. You really put it in a way anyone can understand!
| | |
3/28/2010 8:36:38 PM
this is such a well written blog I hate to comment in disagreement. but
I must. The Declaration of Indepence clearly states that all men are created
equal, with certain inalienable right, and included among these rights is
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For some the pursuit of happiness
is directly linked to their health, and to others it equals income. I have
worked in the medical industry as an echocardiographer for twenty years
and for many those two liberties are tied together. I have seen many lose
their homes, due to a birth of a sick child. How can that be morality, when
a family has no where to take their child after they have given everything
they have to see them through the healing process. I also know that doctors
reimbursements are already controlled by insurance companies, and doctors
along with hospitals must in advance agree to accept what the insurance
companies pay in order to be providers. Doctors and hospitasl are given
a choice in advance.
| | |
3/28/2010 8:52:17 PM
they don't want to do business with certain insurance companies than they
don't have to. When Medicare was first initiated, the medical community
was starkly against it, and now most all doctors accept it. Many currently
in the health care industry are solely dependent on jobs that in a sense
medicare has created. And, I imagine with the addition of so many people
into health care reform many new jobs will be created. Yes there are things
in the bill that many will be in disagreement with, but one thing we must
be in agreement with here in the United States and that is... morally, we
are obligated to care for our own. We all have inalienable rights of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
| | |
3/28/2010 9:07:09 PM
blog I agree..this healthcare will also give the IRS complete control over
your bank acct. ...is this moral....many small business owners will have
to close shop due to the increase in cost....is this moral...many Demi senators
were ask the day after it was signed about different items in the bill....they
didn't have a clue about what was in it...but they voted for it knowing
that a vast majority of the American ppl didn't want it....was that moral...and
Colette is right ...we do have the right to life, liberty and the persuit
of happiness......this takes our liberty away....and the persuit of happiness
is just what it says the persuit...not a given right to it...the doc and
hospitals will be limited to what they can charge....there will be long
lines waiting and not enough ppl working so you will forfit your breaks
and work on twice as many ppl in a day..I am a nurse and my hospital staff
has already been cut.due to lack of state funds..12 hr shifts no breaks..it
will get worse.
| | |
3/28/2010 11:19:35 PM
and death choices are made everyday. Morality is not an issue-any more than
our CHOICE to go to war over and over. Doctors let some die-so that others
may live-simple choice. Rangling over a system that hasn't even started
yet is silly. Good or bad at this point is moot- The biggest GOOD THING
no turn downs for pre existing conditions Something cancer survivors,Hotchkiss
disease survivors and a million other diseases will cheer about! When your
insurance drops you-because you are no longer an equitable risk-you will
be happy. Something which happens everyday. Stop whining about change-its
going to happen even if you don't like it. Give things a chance-then fix
it if it's flawed. http://garygraefen.blogspot.com
|Reply | |
4/6/2010 10:35:01 AM
for this blog...I too am afraid of the socialized government this administration
is putting in place.
|Reply | |
4/18/2010 5:31:11 AM
are really getting a lot of people reading!
|Reply | |
4/19/2010 10:10:22 PM
|Reply | |
5/4/2010 10:07:39 PM
Enjoyed reading your blog . I Dont listen to all the talk about this subject
because its Confusing but your blog is well written . I Think we should
take care of the elders and women with children . but the women that are
taken care of should be informed not to make it a habit of having children
for us to take care of. I Dont have insurance myself nor would I Ever take
a goverment plan . I pay my own way and only when needed or die . lol
|Reply | |
6/26/2010 5:24:07 PM
Bill But When Bible meets Health Care we must address the Problem with Women
having babies and dead beat Dads not taken care of their offspring . Not
so much of just lazy folks ... but more with how they was raised wanting
it handed to them .. lol Sorry and that was awesome if you dont work you
dont eat . but women have to stay at home with the children and the deadbeats
are not around. so warn her once then kick her off the free health care...
had this been done we would not be in a mess.
|Reply | |
6/26/2010 5:58:47 PM
Fantasy Glitter Graphics from SuperPimper.com
|Reply | |
6/27/2010 11:42:40 AM
|Reply | |
7/18/2010 8:21:51 PM
A Republican I Do think we should take care of Our Own !! Own Family , Not
Every Tom , Dick And Harrys !! At the Rate we are going Gary Can Kiss his
Social Security Good Bye . Oh What A Mess Bill !!
|Reply | |
8/15/2010 9:49:30 PM
|Reply | |
8/16/2010 7:27:00 PM
|Reply | |
8/26/2010 12:39:52 PM
well said, thank you for posting that blog
|Reply | |
9/13/2010 6:55:00 AM
|Reply | |
9/14/2010 10:23:31 AM
disagree with your stand and I feel your are being misled. During the Bush
administration, Bush and his buddies had a little club they called 'The
Top Hat Club' -- based on the top hat in the Monopoly game. They played
with our economy like their own personal Monopoly game, and we had a transfer
of wealth from the poor to the rich. Now, one thing I noticed when I played
that game as a child is that once one person started winning, it was nearly
impossible to turn it around. Only one person wound up with all the money,
and everyone else was bankrupt. Game over! That is what happened with our
country. Game over! The wealthy won! Now unless the kid who's sitting there
chortling over all his paper money wants to lose all his friends, who are
going home very ticked off, he has to redistribute the money and start the
game over. Too bad in reality, not the game, people die when the game is
over, instead of just go home and leave the greedy kid to play with his
paper money alone.
|Reply | |
9/17/2010 10:05:34 AM
another example of how the GOP operates, and what they really think of all
of us poor people. I seriously doubt that the majority of the people here
on Yuwie, spending so much time trying to build pennies into dollars, qualify
as wealthy by GOP standards. 'John Snow won't have to worry about his retirement.
When he left the csx railroad to become George W. Bush's second treasury
secretary, he took with him a $2.5 million annual pension. The figure was
based on 44 years of employment at csx, never mind that Snow had been there
for only 25 (during which, incidentally, he brutally cut safety and maintenance,
to the point where a jury awarded a widow $50 million in punitive damages
after a derailment—money paid by the taxpayers because of a little-known
law that insulated Snow and his company from the costs of his egregious
judgment). That kind of boost is unheard of for the rank and file, but not
at all uncommon for corporate executives and owners.' May/June 2009 Mother
|Reply | |
9/17/2010 10:26:00 AM
Yuwiens are the family God forgot to give us