The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
For 'values voters,' health care reform has little value
Sep. 22, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionWASHINGTON -- Health care reform may be Priority No. 1 in Congress and at the White House, but for the 1,825 religious conservatives who gathered here for the annual Values Voter Summit over the weekend, the subject was barely on their radar screen.
"To me, there are so many more important issues than health care right now," said John Leaman, a retired yacht builder from Lancaster, Pa. Added his wife Linda, a waitress: "I don't think it's as urgent as Obama's making it out to be." The real problem, she said, is illegal immigrants "cluttering up our emergency rooms."
Indeed, among the dozen issues that attendees cited in casting their votes in a straw poll for possible 2012 Republican presidential candidates, health care never made the list. The top three issues were abortion, protecting religious liberty and opposing same-sex marriage.
Across dozens of interviews, conservative activists insisted they do care about health care -- several people said they've helped pay neighbors' medical bills -- but they get red-faced at the idea of any government role in reforming the system.
"It's up to us to help each other; it's not the government's job to take care of us," said Karen Marsalis, a retired teacher from Deadwood, Texas, whose shirt, like her husband's, featured stars and stripes and images of the Statue of Liberty.
Just days before the summit got underway, a report by the University of Akron and the liberal-leaning group Public Religion Research found that conservative and progressive activists don't just disagree on hot-button issues on the public agenda, they can't agree on the agenda itself.
Conservative activists -- typified by the "values voters" who rallied in Washington -- picked abortion (83 percent) and same-sex marriage (65 percent) as their top two issues; just 6 percent cited health care. Progressives, meanwhile, cited poverty (74 percent) and health care (67 percent).
The only organized attention that health care received at the two-day summit was a panel discussion on "ObamaCare: Rationing Your Life Away." Judging from the voices of the "values voters," the two sides also can't seem to agree on basic facts, much less solutions.
Take, for example, the number of insured Americans. President Obama, and most surveys, put the number of Americans without health insurance at between 30 and 45 million. That's nonsense, said Dr. Rick Elimon, a general-practice surgeon from North Little Rock, Ark.
"It's totally blown out of proportion," he said. If you subtract illegal immigrants and those who intentionally choose not to buy health insurance, the number is closer to 10 million. "You're always going to have people who are not going to have insurance because they don't want it," he said.
They're people like Elimon's healthy (and employed) 28-year-old son, who his father said wants to spend money on other things, and Jan DeLand of Anchorage, Alaska, who said she gets along fine without insurance, and chafes at a government-imposed mandate to purchase insurance.
"That's not been my priority," she said. "I don't want to be forced into a system that I didn't choose."
Underlying the resistance to health care reform is a deep and abiding distrust of government. Delegates booed at any mention of "Obamacare," and cheered Texas Gov. Rick Perry when he decried a government that "has its hands too far in our pockets and its nose too deep in our business."
"We just need to go back to what Mr. Reagan said," said Marsalis' husband, William, a retired government engineer. "Government is the problem, not the solution."
Many attendees drew a distinction between access to health care and health care reform. Anyone who needs treatment, they said, can get the care they need. How they pay for it is their problem, no one else's.
"Personal responsibility is not something people want to do anymore," said Debbie Michael of Mount Airy, Md. "We expect the government to do it all."
Mandi Campbell, a 24-year-old graduate of Liberty University Law School who now works with the conservative legal firm Liberty Counsel, cited an uninsured friend who was injured in a skiing accident. The $10,000 MRI was eventually written off by the hospital, she said, when her friend couldn't afford to pay.
"So if someone truly needs care and emergency attention," she said, "there are options."
Still, some attendees said there is room for improvement. Lorie Watson, a nurse from Simpsonville, S.C., works for an insurance company administrating third-party claims and worries about the high costs of drugs and tests. She said Washington could have "a limited role in reform, but not in providing health care."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council and FRC Action, which hosted the summit, said if you take a "government take-over" of health care and federal funding for abortion off the table, there is room to discuss making insurance more "accessible and affordable," starting with protecting doctors from malpractice suits and making insurance "portable" across state lines and jobs.
"That's a conversation we need to have," he said.
But for many conservatives, it's not a conversation that should involve any government agency.
"I don't want the same people who are running the DMV," said Howard University law student Mike Blackmon, "to be running my health care."
What an amazing display of
What an amazing display of hypocrisy coming from these self-styled "values voters". All the usual rightwing claptrap - government takeover, illegal aliens, blah blah. A feasible "option" is for the hospital to write off $10,000 for someone who doesn't consider insurance a "priority"??? Yes, it's more fun to buy jet skis than boring old insurance. If you break your neck, just stick someone else with the bill. And these rightwing phonies have the nerve to preach about self reliance and personal responsibility? Apparently that only applies to illegal aliens, gays and poor people.
--------------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-John Kenneth Galbraith
The conservative philosophy
The conservative philosophy is pay as you go; it's that simple. It is not selfishness. Some on the right are materialistic but true conservatives follow the philsoophy of Edmund Burke. No conservative denies the need for a safety net for those who can't help themselves and can't find help in the private sector. But government help should be a last resort; it should not be a starting point. There is no such thing as a right to healthcare. People need to take care of themselves and families need to take care of their own. People who have children should take care of them throughout their lives if they fall on hard times.
So, in other words, if I
So, in other words, if I understand correctly, these folks repudiate Jesus' words that we ARE our brothers' keepers.
Have I got that right?
No, they would probably agree
No, they would probably agree that "we ARE our brother's keepers." We're just not the keepers of people we can dehumanizingly refer to as "cluttering up our emergency rooms."
Let me see if I have this
Let me see if I have this straight.
Oppose "government-run" medical care.
Support "government-run" personal life.
OK...I have it straight now.
The question is not "What would Jesus do?", rather it is "Where is Jesus when we need him."
There is a mile thick and
There is a mile thick and mile wide stone wall between absolute principles for which there is only one right direction to go and those to which there are many prudential options. Thus, we may never take any action but restrict or eliminate routine violations of the right to life (it is somewhat of a binary choice, either you allow or disallow murder), but the question of HOW we are to ensure the provision of rights such as that to healthcare is a pudential judgment. There are many possible ways to ensure people get what is due them in this regard, and it is perfectly reasonable that people might not think this or that proposal (which might affect other prudential or absolute principles) is the best solution.
Kinda tells you what their
Kinda tells you what their values really are. You can blame some of it onthe pernicious fearmongering done by the GOP, etc, but, when it comes to pocketbook issues, I think it's real easy to overestimate the generousity of the American public.
All these retired value
All these retired value voters pontificating on issues which don't effect them is pretty cool. Nothing like dictating morality for everyone else when none of your intrinsic evils apply to you.
I will believe they are sincere when they burn their medicaid, medicare, and social security cards.
Got it in one! I do
Got it in one! I do telephone research for a living and one thing that astonished me on a recent poll about health care reform was the number of retired people on Medicare who insisted that 1) Obama wants to create socialized medicine, and 2) Medicare is NOT socialized medicine, even though it is a government plan. Are these people so utterly brainwashed by the right wing or are they all just dumber than a box of rocks?
And, BTW, this time next year, I qualify for Medicare myself.
Health care reform probably
Health care reform probably does not make the list of important issues because the reform of the system is so easy. Eliminate or dramatically limit the amount of frivolous malpractice suits, and dramatically limit the amount of money paid in so-called "pain and suffering" and "punitive" damages. Make insurance portable, and allow individuals and families to purchase health insurance across state lines. Remove much of the unfunded mandates and regulations that clog the health care system.
Doing these simple things will spur the competition that President Obama claims to desire. It will encourage insurance companies to compete with one another when they realize that they are no longer restricted by arbitrary state boundaries and regulation. Prices will be reduced as a result and more people will be able to afford coverage that they want, from insurance providers that they trust.
Limiting malpractice suits and payouts will eliminate much of the medical waste that currently occurs in our hospitals and doctor's offices. Most, if not all, physicians practice a form of defensive medicine: they schedule patients for procedures and tests that are not necessary for the sole purpose of protecting the doctors from lawsuits. In one study of doctors in Massachusetts, 83% of respondents said that they ordered tests that they thought were unnecessary just to protect themselves from malpractice claims.
"Defensive medicine is a very important component of the health care equation," said Dr. Albert Strunk of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "It's also a component that is notoriously difficult to evaluate in terms of actual dollars. We've seen estimates anywhere from $60 billion a year to $200 billion a year as far as defensive medicine is concerned." According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 2000 and 2002, insurance premiums for Americans rose about 15%. In the same time period, medical malpractice insurance costs for general surgeons in Florida rose 75%! Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas noted that "Texas passed tort reform in 2003 and...insurance premiums went down 30%. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40%".
Congress and the President know exactly what they need to do to help reform the health care system, without simultaneously destroying it. There is no need to behave as if this is an insoluble crisis that will require the dismantling of the current health care system and the creation of a new one. All that is required is political will, common sense and courage. Unfortunately, the Democrats, led by the example of the President, possess none of those necessary qualities.
They've studied the effect of
They've studied the effect of medical malpractice tort reform enacted in Texas a few years ago. It has significantly lowered malpractice insurance, overall decreased malpractice suits, attracted more doctors to Texas and done absolutely nothing to lower healthcare costs. Whatever savings there's been has gone to the pockets of doctors or insurance companies.
The poor people who do not
The poor people who do not qualify for Medicaid, but who cannot afford insurance will not be able to afford copays and deductibles either, so making insurance available to them will be a waste of tax dollars. What they need is to be able to pay an affordable, predictable fixed amount of money and have all their medical expenses, including immunizations, covered 100%.
The purpose of health insurance is and has always been to limit the effects of ill health upon one's finances. If one has limited finances, health insurance is of questionable value.
This doesn't sound like a
This doesn't sound like a meeting of religious conservatives to discuss values; it sounds like every other meeting that ever takes place where Republicans chide big government. There may be a merit to that conversation, but don't couch it behind a title that implies "Values" are being discussed.
These people are the LOWEST
These people are the LOWEST of the low. They claim to be people of God/Jesus, yet practice NONE of the love & compassion that Jesus taught us to do.
Unfortunately, there are PLENTY of these types in the Catholic Church, from the hierarchy to the lay people.
-------
What good is it...if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed, someone might say, "Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also is faith without works is dead.
James 2, 14-18, 20, 24, 26
"Go therefore and give your
"Go therefore and give your money to the government of the day, thus allowing that government and its rulers to do good works. For faith without works is dead and works without government doing them for you is evil. Do not take for an example your Lord, Who demonstrated His faith through good works He and His disciples did themselves. Take rather as your example the laze buffoon who would rather give his money to the rulers and allow them to do the good works, while he himself says 'What good I have done!'."
James...oops, sorry, not in the Christian Bible, but undoubtedly in the Liberal version.
In the words of the
In the words of the Lord""Father,pray for them for they know what they do" or maybe they do.
Wait, where does Jesus say in
Wait, where does Jesus say in the Gospels that we are our brothers' keepers? That line comes first from the mouth of CAIN! We are called to love our neighbors, honor our parents, provide for our children.... but out of love and freedom, not coercion or political force.
God's commandments include "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" -clearly something every centralized, socialist regime has done since the dawn of time. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. But its premise is the concept of private property and personal responsibility in keeping contracts.
Socialism is a theory of government - as is Constitutional Federalism. Socialism's premise is that the state (and more practically, those people who run it) own everything and decide the winners and losers. That's hardly a biblical world view! Without private property acknowledged, Socialism has no basis for affirming inalienable human rights as existing apart from government power, which is why bloodshed has been the norm for socialist regimes since the 1840s.
In the midst of these two worlds lies the Church which is neither an economic nor a political entity but a voluntary association. Monastic groups have lived a lifestyle of common ownership of property and mutual support. But they've also lived vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The early Church initally sought to live the common distribution of goods ideal - but they recognized (as seen in Acts) that people still had property rights and that their gifts were free - not coerced by power of the state or Church making demands.
From an American perspective, then, our political theory is Constitutional Federal Republicanism; our economic system is actually a hybrid heavily regulated social-capitalist model whereby the federal, state and local governments do restrict, restrain, regulate, and tax private property for various common good purposes. So it's hardly an either/or unchecked Robber baron capitalism vs. wonderful utopian Socialsm that we currently experience.
Into this mix lies the Church with 65 million (nominal) members, 1/3rd of all hospitals and clinics, a host of K-post grad educational institutions, and innumerable charitable enterprises supported by the faithful out of free will gifts.
And on one side we find the odd array of Catholics who want the state to force fellow citizens to be generous with their money... provided "the right" people are in charge of course! Imagine if 'evil' neo-cons ran the federal, state, and local bureaucracies! the horror! and on the other are Catholics who believe that social ills are best solved by individual, family, and local community outreach without the force of law, government, and police-state tactics. Which side believes more in the goodness of their fellow man?
"God's commandments include
"God's commandments include "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" -clearly something every centralized, socialist regime has done since the dawn of time. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. But its premise is the concept of private property and personal responsibility in keeping contracts."
"...In the midst of these two worlds lies the Church which is neither an economic nor a political entity but a voluntary association...not coerced by power of the state or Church making demands."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Your words are TRUTH! This is why the American Catholic Church is strong. I will freely give 10% and more of my income to the Catholic Church, BUT if the Catholic Church sees it fit to POLITICALLY support the state in pulling more money out of my hard earned income for redistribution purposes, then I will be forced to reduce my monetary gifts to the Catholic Church and their institutions.
Economic Class ENVY will be the death of the Catholic Church's fund raising for "...hospitals and clinics, a host of K-post grad educational institutions, and innumerable charitable enterprises supported by the faithful out of free will gifts." Sure the Church might benefit in a parnership with the state until the state decides that the Church MUST adhere to the state's stance on abortion, gay marriage, cloning, death penalty, etc...
Post new comment