National Healthcare | The Facebook Dialogues

So - my favorite left-leaning nephew posts the following on his Facebook......Here's the dialogue that ensues. I'd love your feedback and opinion on either side of this equation.

Tony Anderson :
Harcore Republicans: What makes health care so different from things like deciding to go to war or whether or not police officers should patrol our cities? Next time we want to pick a fight with a country, I want to vote. I'm not picking a fight here, but I don't get why the line was drawn around certain things and not others. Why not complete anarchy? Why not total Socialism? Where does it stop on either end?

Hollie Anderson and Julia Ma like this.

Jeremy Thompson:
Amen.


Ryan Chabot:
What are you saying? Why are you calling out "Hardcore Republicans"? I don't recall voting for the ever expanding "Hardcore Liberal" bailout plan. I don't know about you but I do NOT want my doctors office run as efficiently (intended sarcasm) as the DMV and other government run agencies. Just ask any Veteran that uses the VA for their health care services.

Tony Anderson:
You know exactly why I am calling out "hardcore republicans". There are people who pick at everything the President does, no matter what the decision. As for health care, could it simply be that the reason places like the DMV are not efficient is that there is a fundamental flaw in how they are organized, but that the overall concept is not a bad idea?

Yes, giving health care to more Americans would necessarily create some inevitable chaos. But saying that you are against the idea and then not providing any solution is basically saying that you don't care about the millions of uninsured Americans. I'm not all for Obama's plan, because I think there are some unanswered questions about how all of this will be funded, but if (and this is a big "if") 1. More Americans will be able to get affordable health care, and 2. The overall costs in health care will go down, I feel that it is our obligation to at least CONSIDER such a plan, and not toss it away.

Tony Anderson:
I mean, if you think our government can't do anything right, then I return to my intial question: "Why have any government at all? Why not just let everyone do what they want and have complete and total survival of the fittest?" What makes us think that a government body should make such a monumental decision as telling us that we are going to war, but we can't even CONSIDER the idea of the government making health care available to a greater number of individuals. I understand the implications involved, but I feel that when people toss out the idea simply based on the idea that other government plans aren't very efficient, they don't have a very solid argument, because not ALL government programs run inefficiently, and if they do, then why have government at all?


John Anderson:
Chaos? What chaos? Question is....what IS the role of government? Is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide extensive healthcare benefits to every citizen (and illegal?) Its laid out pretty well in the Constitution. I definitely don't think the Federal government is there to provide national healthcare, though you MAY make an argument that it is a STATE level program - which, according to the Constitution, it is the type of program that should be governed and regulated at the State level. Now, there isn't time here to go into the math and finances of 'affordable' - we'll leave the quagmire of funding healthcare for another forum - Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that it IS affordable (and we'll even pretend that the affordable plan will be 'sufficient and adequate' coverage - yet another HUGE discussion for another time. So, let's just focus on WHO will benefit from this plan. The poor?


John Anderson:
They have 100% coverage through Medicaid (which we pay for). Seniors? They have the best benefits of all in America through Medicare - which we cannot afford. So, which group will 'benefit' by a nationally sponsored health plan? The middle class - you, me, and everyone remotely able to work. So, national health insurance will be offered to us at 'affordable rates' - but who is going to pay? We are. The working class. And here's my biggest problem with it - what about people who choose to NOT have insurance? Who want to save their money, or pay cash? Yes, there are millions in America without health insurance. But millions also choose to NOT have insurance. I just feel that there is a much better way to extend access to the healthcare system. I'd like to explore the concept of HSA's - both private and company funded - and a complete overhaul of the health pricing system. It's the only industry in the world where you go get a service and don't know what it will cost you...


Tony Anderson:
John, those are good thoughts. I do like the idea of exploring other options, and I don't support any system that would "force" health care on anyone. I think that would be extremely wasteful for those situations, as you mentioned, in which people choose not to have health insurance. But I think the current system is flawed, and agree with the President that a good deal of fat can be trimmed out of the equation.

As for the anarchy comment...My beef is this: we always go back to the Constitution as our source for everything, but neither you nor I had any say in how the Constutution was constructed. So, yes, according to the Constitution, all of the answers to my question are provided for, but that's assuming we all subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is complete as is. I don't really like the "it's in the Constitution answer", in the same way I don't like the "it's in the Bible" answer. My curiousity on this issue is broader than a legal document; I am asking why the Constitution was drafted in that way. Why is my individual decision to go to war any less of my personal business than my health care? I submit that it is not.


John Anderson:
Fat trimmed? Then please, let's not ad $1.5 trillion for the creation of a national healthcare program. That's the cost JUST to get it established, but the ongoing operational costs will be much higher. And, it won't be optional - once passed, it will be doled out to everyone whether we like it or not - hence the higher costs of covering those who don't feel healthcare is a pressing concern at their point in life. Look - it's a noble Robin-Hood-ish idea - which is my main problem with lefty perspectives - let's take care of everyone in a uniform one-size-fits-all fashion. It's enforced equality. But it ironically dilutes the better benefits for seniors and the poor, dumps benefits on the middle class, and makes everyone pay for it. You keep wanting to vote....So, when do we get to vote? And can we line-item veto the program? Again, there's just a much, much better way to revise healthcare while maintaining individual choice and opt-in.

I read the Constitution for the first time ever front to back this year. If you haven't had the opportunity to do it, I'd highly recommend it. Pretty inspiring. And depressing. I especially like Article V - very short piece on how to mend and amend the Constitution to help it breathe with the times. Interesting little tidbit in there that describes the two ways to Amend the Constitution. One way is very traditional - Senators, Congressmen, Bills, ratification, House, etc. The other is an unused, VERY possible option that bypasses Washington altogether and rallies the local State Legislatures. Did you know that the Constitution can be changed with unity among 2/3 of the state legislatures? Hmmmm. Very intriguing. There's a movement underway to do just that - I can't wait to see how it plays out. Takes ONLY 34 states to agree. First item on the agenda - term limits for Congressmen and Senators - the only group who don't have limits - and hence - status quo.

Question for all of us on this last matter is.....can you even name ONE local Legislator? Most people cannot, yet they have the same constitutional amending authority and power as Senators and Congressmen. They get voted in during the 2-year off-season vote (IE in 2010) (when there's typically only a 5% voter turnout!) With a little coordination, Legislators can make substantial alterations to the Constitution. And, if we took the time, we could have a much closer relationship with our Legislators who live in our neighborhoods and attend our town meetings than we could have by the big money lobby supported Washingtonites who quickly meld into the Washington-machine politics in order to maintain their unlimited term in office. But hey, don't get me going.....