Conservative ideas that could grossly backfire....
(HT: Glass City Jungle)
State Representatives Barbara Sears (R-Sylvania) and Ron Maag (R-Lebanon) have introduced House Joint Resolution 3, the "Ohio Health Care Freedom Act." The bill would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to amend the Ohio Constitution to "prohibit any Ohio law or rule from forcing any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system."
Yes, it's about time we amended our constitution to defend the right not to be part of the health care system. Uninsured Ohioans unite! You're not oppressed, you're FREE from the burden of having to deal with insurance companies who dictate how much of your medical expenses they'll help you pay. Why, with no health insurance, you're free to have as much health care as you can privately afford on your own. What could possibly go wrong?
“Over the years, a number of proposals have been introduced here in Ohio that would implement and require single health care system,” said Maag. “The individual freedom of people to make their own health care decisions is essential to their well-being and with the enactment of the Ohio Health Care Freedom Act in the Ohio Constitution, the right of every person to make lawful decisions about their own health care shall not be infringed.”
Here's the thing, though, Representative Maag. If you create a constitutional amendment that says individuals "have a fundamental right to make lawful decisions about their own health care," I don't think that will have the intended consequence of stopping single-payer health care. In fact, I could almost guarantee that it ends the debate.
The odd thing is that this bill is reflective of the gross misunderstanding conservatives have about Obama's health insurance plan reform. If enacted, Ohioans will, for the first time, have a commercially viable choice among private insurers that they currently do not have because they are forced to take the one-size fits all plans their employer provide. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80% of Americans will still be insured by private insurers if a public option is created.
To say that this health care reform bill is a government "takeover" is just nonsense. It's no different than when Ohio Republicans forced universal auto insurance on Ohioans when they enacted the Financial Responsibility Act that requires every Ohio motorist to carry a certain level of auto insurance.
With a couple of Democratically-supported amendments, Speaker Buddish could pass this resolution and put on the ballot a constitutional amendment explicitly providing an individual state constitutional right to health care... an amendment introduced by two conservative Republicans. Bipartisan irony abounds. Make it so.
"It's no different than when Ohio Republicans forced universal auto insurance on Ohioans when they enacted the Financial Responsibility Act that requires every Ohio motorist to carry a certain level of auto insurance."
Actually, it is. Much different. Drivers are required to carry LIABILITY auto coverage - meaning that drivers are required to insure other drivers against their potential mistakes and/or recklessness. There is no requirement that any driver in this state carry comprehensive- or collision coverage. In other words, drivers in Ohio have no legal obligation to protect THEMSELVES and THEIR VEHICLES. Your analogy makes no sense at all. A lawyer should know this, right? I would assume. But an intellectually-dishonest lawyer is a different story. An intellectually-dishonest lawyer just doesn't care...?
Aside from that, hilarious use of the phrase 'Ohio Republicans' there. It may be true that a majority Republican legislature passed that law (I have no idea). But your singling out of Republicans implies - what, exactly? That Democrats don't think drivers in Ohio should be required to carry auto liability insurance?
But let's just accept your premise here. If 'Ohio Republicans' are the reason Ohioans are required to carry auto liability insurance, please explain how 'Washington Democrats' are not responsible for the first-ever trillion-dollar deficit in the history of the United States. Crickets, no doubt.
This post makes absolutely no sense, Modern. A real stretch...
Federal tax receipts increased following the Bush tax cuts. As did federal spending, at a rate higher than the growth of receipts. Ergo, too much spending caused the Bush deficits, just as it is causing the Obama deficit - which I note, will be more than four times bigger this year than any that Bush and the Republican Congress (and then Bush and the DEMOCRAT Congress - you Democrat deficit-watchers always seem to forget that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have controlled the federal wallet since January 2007) ran up between 2001 and 2009. Look it up.
But whatever you do, don't ever let facts get in the way. Ever. You guys never do.
We agree that trillion-dollar deficits are bad. We don't agree that tax cuts caused the current budget mess, but you won't change your mind under any circumstances, I'm sure.
So if George W. Bush and 'The Republicans' wrecked the federal budget with 'tax cuts for the rich,' why don't Barack Obama and your Democrats just raise taxes?
Think about it.
Another thing to do is to think long-term. For example, a government option for healthcare. If anyone has had any sort of experience as an employer or any experience in labor negotiations, they can attest to what a burden healthcare costs are. If you have a more efficient healthcare system (just replace where I say "efficient" for "socialism" from here on out, so you don't get lost) than you lower the unnecessary burden that was previously bogging down employers and growth is promoted.
Further, Democrats have never been good with handling lies thrown out by the GOP. For example, the '94 elections that resulted from "THE HIGHEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!" Newt Gingrich stated that passing "THTIIAH" would lead to the biggest recession this side of the Great Depression and he would personally hold each Democrat responsible. Clearly he is not a man of his word, or else he would've campaigned vigorously for Democratic candidates across the board in 2006.
The point being, doing the right thing -- the thing that makes the most economic sense -- albeit healthcare reform or THTIIAH (which actually lowered taxes for most Americans) is met with a barrage of lies from the other side that, unfortunately, the American voter cannot sift through. The result is a loss of the Congress and White House and standing by waiting to clean up the shit again once we get out to the other side, only to be greeted by more lies.
"[A]lbeit healthcare reform or THTIIAH (which actually lowered taxes for most Americans) is met with a barrage of lies from the other side that, unfortunately, the American voter cannot sift through..."
Yes, it is voters' stupidity that is causing the nationalization of health care to be more difficult than Barack Obama anticipated. Ridiculous. Barack Obama, who has never held a job prior to the one he took eight months ago in which he had actual responsibilities, now is equipped to tell Americans how they should address their health care needs and people who disagree are stupid. Brilliant.
This is why national health care will fail again - the arrogance of those who would impose it on the rest of us. The numbers just don't add up. People know it. Keep blaming voters, though...by the way, Democrats are +77 in the House and +20 in the Senate. As I've noted before, it's almost as though they made a bunch of promises they can't possibly keep. You'll catch on.
By the way, if you really want an example of voter stupidity, how about those who voted for Barack Obama in part because they actually believed he could nationalize the health care industry without more deficit spending and without raising taxes on anyone but those who are already shouldering more than 40 PERCENT of the federal income tax burden (see link below). That's REAL stupidity...gullibility...willful ignorance...whatever you want to call it...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
According to a Research 2000 poll, 11% of Americans do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. An additional 10% are unsure about whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. Accordingly, 1/5th of our country is unsure whether Barack Obama was born in the United States.
1/5th. Of. Americans. Do. Not. Believe. Barack. Obama. Was. Born. In. The. United. States. Or. Are. Unsure.
What do they believe? I cannot begin to reason with them, so I am assuming their belief is along these lines: Stanley Ann Dunham, jihadist extraordinare, met Barack Obama, Sr. in Hawaii while he was a student. At some point, this miscegnated couple bore child. Instead of giving birth to that child in the country they had such a hatred for, they flew to Obama, Sr's. native Kenya, to ensure son would grow up to have a similar hatred for America. Following the birth in the East African village, Mr. Obama and Ms. Dunham falsely filed a notice with local Hawaiin papers, so that when their child ran for the office of President of the United States, he would be eligible under the requirements set forth by the Constitution. Mr. Obama and Ms. Dunham then conspired with Hawaiian local officials who had a similar disdain for America and longed for a day of a Communist American state and those officials issued Barack Hussein Obama a birth certificate from Hawaii. The seed was planted, the plan was working according to plan. Blah, blah, blah, he got into HLS, blah, blah, blah, worked as a State Senator, etc etc, etc, and he conviced 53% of the American public to vote for him to be the 44th President of the United States of America.
Yeah, 1/5th of Americans, evidently, believe something similar to that. So excuse me while I offend those same Americans for their inability to understand healthcare reform.
Now, granted, the Birther movement is an internent phenomenon. I understand that. But, let's say that a woman -- who 46% of Americans wanted to be the VPOTUS -- goes on a social networking site and claims that inside the 1000+ page bill, there is a provision that would allow for death panels. All of the sudden, those same 61 million people will gladly gobble up a blatant lie from a woman who was nearly the Vice President of the United States. Further, Americans are going to listen to her regardless -- she was almost the Vice President for christ's sake!
Heck, I'll take anything a politicians says with a grain of salt. I understand they're pushing their own political agenda. But, I do not expect to have blatant unfounded lies told to me (even in a post-WMD world). But when such a powerful political voice can get away with spreading such falsehoods, it seriously undermines any possibility of having a legitimate conversation on the matter.
So yes, when blatant lies are told -- whether it be about healthcare, THTIIAH, or -- amazingly-- where Barack Obama was born, it is difficult for the American voter to know who to trust and to sift through the untruthiness of those on the Right side of the aisle.
I remember a poll from a few years back indicating that 1 in 3 Democrats believed George W. Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen and did nothing to stop them. Pretty crazy, isn't it?
Point is, that figure, just like those you cite above, has absolutely nothing in the world to do with the effort to nationalize health care.
You guys just can't win this one on the merit of your ideas, so you resort to stuff like trashing Sarah Palin (funny, I note, how a supposed 'idiot' from Alaska could have such an impact via her Facebook page on a debate of such 'urgent' importance taking place in Washington...). How original. This failed when Clinton tried. It'll fail again. And 2010's probably gonna be a bad year for Democrats - if Republicans can avoid being stupid for long enough to let Democrats hang themselves with the rope they're holding.
Meanwhile, we've gone from talking about deficits in the billions to talking about deficits in the TRILLIONS. Change!
If we can't win this argument on the merits, then why has the Right resorted to lies?
Further -- for me, it's simple. I find it repulsive that as the last great super power we have 50M uninsured Americans. I think it's a moral prerogative to ensure that all Americans have access to healthcare. I'm all for a government option. If it's so bad, if it's so vastly inefficient, then private insurers has nothing to worry about, as it won't be able to compete in the market.
The amount Americans pay in taxes is 28% of our GDP. On average, Europeans pay taxes worth 38% of their GDP. They also don't pay for healthcare or higher education. Now, I wouldn't go as far as Europeans to foot the bill for higher education (and trust me when I say that such a policy would benefit me more than anyone else), but I am all for accessible insurance for all.
It's also worth noting that any misguided beliefs re: Bush/9-11 were not promulgated by say Al Gore or John Edwards.
It is true that Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment. Personally, I never agreed with him. But even Kucinich's articles related to "misleading Americans into war." He did not proclaim that "Bush knew about 9/11 and didn't act." His whole thing was entering war with false pretenses, which differs from the poll that you cite.
"The amount Americans pay in taxes is 28% of our GDP. On average, Europeans pay taxes worth 38% of their GDP. They also don't pay for healthcare..."
The comment above implies that you think Americans should pay higher taxes to finance a European-style, wealth-redistributing social welfare state. Fine. A perfectly legitimate view, one I believe Barack Obama and most elected Democrats share. But they won't be as clear about it as you are. A not very honest way (at least, intellectually) of going about the effort to nationalize health care, wouldn't you agree? If they were honest about it, they would just say "We think you should pay higher taxes to finance a European-style health care system." But they don't, and never will. Because they would get crushed.
As for Palin specifically, it seems that the Democrat - DEMOCRAT, as there are 60 of them in the Senate versus 40 Republicans - amendments to the health care bill were a vindication of sorts of the claims she made. If not, why did Democrats - DEMOCRATS - in the United States Senate feel the need to amend the bill in response to her criticisms? If she's making it up, tell people she's making it up and steamroll her. If she's such an idiot, why are you guys seemingly so afraid of her?
Good questions, no?
The argument is that every great president has asked the American people to sacrifice during a time of war -- except for Bush, and he had two wars. Everything else had "the circumstances change since 9/11" -- except for Bush's idea of the tax code. We essentially have an unfunded $3T war that never made it into the budget and is being funded by China. The fact that Bush lowered the highest marginal tax rates, didn't change course on his tax cuts during a time where all other polices were looked at through a different lens following 9/11, and in general did not care how he was funding the needless wars, is how we got into this mess.
Now, you won't hear tea baggers complaining about the unpaid-for-war and the resulting 5000 casualites. But, however, when the stakes are insuring the remaining 50M uninsured people, then they are out in full blown douchery.
You're a lawyer. I'd think you can expound on the question better than that!
In 1932 or thereabouts the federal government decided that we really didn't want granny starving to death in her old age...so Social Security was invented. And it went something like this. Give us a small percentage of your income, and when you get old and tired we will send you a small check to keep the lights on. Certainly you wouldn't call that an immoral invasion of government into your private life, would you? In the same vein, government is ALREADY providing health insurance for poor people and old people. Is that immoral and somehow wrong? No, it is the right thing to do. Universal Health Care will save all of us a lot of money. The system we have just doesn't work in a financial sense.
Now that I think about it, how about the comparison to government "intrusion" into educating your children? Seems kind of important to me, and for 200 years we have had neighborhood schools run by the government. That would be a government mandate,but you don't find that offensive do you?
And on a personal parental/nursing note...what is THE HANDS DOWN BEST TRAUMA HOSPITAL IN OHIO? Why it is Cleveland't Metro of course. And who again owns that place? Oh yeah, that would be Cuyahoga County. If you ever had a kid seriously injured in a trauma...if you have any brains at all you demand they be life-flighted to Metro. Ask and doc or nurse. They will tell you....the government hospital, for trauma, is top notch.
Enough of a ramble.
OK. So Social Security's going broke and we will be forced to choose at some point between benefit cuts and massive tax hikes to close a multi-trillion dollar deficit.
Kind of like how with national health care, we will be forced to choose at some point between benefit cuts (aka rationing) and massive tax hikes to close a multi-trillion dollar deficit.
Therein lies the heart of the matter, Judge...
You're a liberal's liberal. Clear in what you believe and willing to articulate principles clearly and in such a way as to try to influence people, rather than trick (or smear) those whose views differ from yours. Plenty of room enough in a democracy for my views and your views.
And you're right. If the Congress (Democrat, at the moment - but Republicans failed when they had the opportunity) decides that the fiscal health of the system is more important than their re-election campaign, they WILL start taking the Social Security question seriously. Their options are to raise the retirement age or to raise taxes (President Bush's proposal from a few years back is clearly off the table for those currently in power). They will do neither before next year's elections, and the deficit will continue to grow. It's a real mess - one that blaming President Obama's predecessor and 'the Republicans' will do nothing to solve. You and I both know this (I'm not sure authors and other readers of this blog do...or if they do, they will not acknowledge as much as it would mean acknowledging that Democrats are failing on this front).
But I say again: I respect you. An honest broker. So I ask, what about the view that the politicization of Social Security (GWB didn't propose 'privatizing' SS, he proposed allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in a retirement account they would control) and the threat it poses to our national economic well-being in the era of multi-trillion dollar federal deficits should give people pause when it comes to the question of whether or not the government should take over health care?
I remember when everyone who knew about money (I'm not one of them) was clamoring for the "right" of individuals to invest in the market instead of contributing to Social Security. Thank God we didn't go that way...if we had SS and the individual accounts would have taken a gigantic dive in the past three years and today's crisis would have become substantially worse. Picture the 40-year old today who just invested his SS money in the market for the past ten years. Today he would have nothing, and that would be a problem. I truly believe the government does an adequate job of providing health care coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. The problem is that the current system does nothing for the people who are paying the bills!! The middle income father or mother of three has health care coverage that is SUBSTANTIALLY INFERIOR to the coverage of the welfare mother and our senior citizens. Government can run health care, but we have tostop "cherry picking" and only taking care of the old, the poor and the healthy. One ship. Everybody aboard.