patrick.net

Teddy Says: I believe we are in a game of shirts vs. skins....with the passage of health reform shirts just went up with a touchdown for my progressive movement. Teddy started this 100 years ago and Teddy is as conservative as can be yet we have all listened to the rhetoric aimed at defeating this bill and latched on to a lot of false facts.

The above proves the bill will have positive impact throughout our country, right?

"Tanning Tax — 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services."

Hey, even better, tax all outdoor tanning.

Okay, I'll play. Food for thought, things to consider.

Cost: Some of the proposed deficit reduction comes from the four year run up. To whit, taxes are being increased over the entire ten years, but the majority of the program isn't implemented except during six of those years. You would hope that, in this situation, deficit reduction would be possible. But the bill does not cover Obama's plan to restore a medicare reduction to doctor payouts that alone will likely undo any savings this might bring (and actually according to most estimates, including the administration's, would undo the savings by about 300 percent).

Coverage: Expanding coverage is both a good and a bad thing. For those people without coverage, it's great. For those with, it's terrible. The math is simple. Say that our medical system is capable of producing 100 million units of health care (there is a limit, based on how many nurses, doctors, and facilities we have; if we increase any of these, we're increasing the total cost, which would cut into the previous section's credibility, not to mention an increase in doctors would require the AMA's approval, which isn't likely). Say that before this, there were two hundred million people insured. This would mean there was enough health care for each person to have one half of a unit. Increasing the amount of consumers means there is only .43 units available for each. Do all of us currently feel we are receiving as much care as quickly as we would like. Judging by the six month to a year waits for many specialists, I doubt it. This is common sense and basic logic, unless we increase the total amount of something, dividing it by more people will not improve the outcomes for the people who already have it. So this is a gain for 32 million, a loss for all the previously insured. From a humanitarian point of view this is probably worth it, to care for the least fortunate, but it is still a potential issue.

Medicare:
The Medicaid cuts to states are particularly problematic because of the matching system. As it is, for each federal Medicaid dollar given to a state program, the state matches a certain percentage. So each federal dollar cut also cuts some state funding, which will be very problematic in areas such as services for people with disabilities and the indigent.

Insurance Reform:
Long term this will work itself out, because everyone will be on the system full time. But short term this could break our medical system. If we assume that a lot of people currently without insurance are without insurance because they cannot get it due to pre-existing conditions, these people, once insured, will likely require large amounts of medical services, otherwise what was the point of the insurance company rejecting them. Most of these people probably received medical care anyway, as hospitals are required to provide lifesaving care, but the amount of sustenance care they will receive will certainly increase. This could even out over time, as additional preventative treatments hopefully lower the amount of people with serious illnesses, but we can't be sure.

Abortion:
This is something of a non-issue, actually. Abortion is legal, deal with it, live with it. Move on.

Individual mandate:
This mostly exists to force young able-bodied people to buy insurance, because they are currently opting out. This is financially bad for young able-bodied people. More importantly, there are serious questions of constitutionality in regards to this. Many New Deal Programs were declared unconstitutional, this could be headed the same way. Though congress can pass laws that do a number of things and bar a number of things, there are questions as to what power congress has to compel behavior except in cases of national emergency (the draft). Most conservatives oppose this simply because they consider themselves to be in favor of the most freedom possible, and this is certainly a step away from that. Any mandate is a step away from individual freedom.

Employer Mandate:
Most conservatives believe this will cost jobs, because any burdens placed on business will cost jobs. Obviously non-conservatives disagree, and this is something that has been argued for years and is an ongoing difference between the two sides. So, if you're a conservative, you see this as a job killer. If you're not, you don't.

Illegal Immigration:
This part is still open, as the wording of the bill leaves open amnesty as a method for allowing illegal immigrants to buy in.

Also, Teddy Roosevelt was no conservative. He was the founder of the Progressive Party and would certainly be a modern Democrat considering the major influence his party's platform had on modern liberalism.

ahasuerus99 makes some good points. This bill is quite flawed and does only the bare minimum to contain costs. The strange thing is that this is essentially a moderate Republican bill passed by Democrats and demonized by some of the very Republicans that either proposed or, in the case of Romney, passed almost identical plans in the past. The Republicans clearly decided to follow the William Kristol playbook from '93 and put all their eggs in the obstructionist basket.

The problem with this approach is that, as Kristol so famously warned in '93, if any element of the bill ended up getting passed by the Dems, the Republicans would be SOL. Why? Well, for one thing, the obstructionist path require absurd claims that contradict both logic and past Republican claims. Casting their lot with the "death panel" crazies was a calculated risk, and one that they lost. Also, as Kristol warned, elements that are passed could grow in popularity as the public learns about them and grows accustomed to them (like extending the age of kids on plans to 26 and eliminating the "donut hole").

As a result of taking the Kristol obstructionist route, the Republicans were stuck repudiating almost every moderate cost control measure. What they were left with was tort reform, draconian "high risk pools", and a whole lot of nothing.

So now they are forced to hope the public will keep its collective head shoved where the sun don't shine and not ever figure out what is actually in the bill, or, just as significantly, what is not in the bill. Sure, most don't want "socialized medicine" (apparently except for Medicare) but they DO seem to want an elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and they want subsidies to enable the less well off buy insurance (and get them out of emergency rooms). See the problem here? What if the public actually figures out what is in the bill? (Especially since the major elements of the bill all poll very well on their own.)

Now I supported healthcare as a first step, to allow everyone to buy insurance. But I don't support many other elements of the Democratic agenda. So I fear the gamble the Republicans took (and lost) with healthcare will come back to haunt them in the near and long term. It looks to me like they listened to Kristol one time too many.

Both of you make very solid points, however, Teddy Roosevelt is my hero and yes, I know he was not a conservative but a progressive.

He is well remembered for his energetic personality, range of interests and achievements, leadership of the Progressive Movement, model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" image. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. Before becoming President (1901–1909) he held offices at the municipal, state, and federal level of government. Roosevelt's achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician. In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated, and Roosevelt became president at the age of 42, taking office at the youngest age of any U.S. President in history.[3] Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase "Square Deal" to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair shake under his policies. As an outdoorsman and naturalist, he promoted the conservation movement. On the world stage, Roosevelt's policies were characterized by his slogan, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal; he sent out the Great White Fleet to display American power, and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.[4]

Roosevelt declined to run for re-election in 1908. After leaving office, he embarked on a safari to Africa and a trip to Europe. On his return to the US, a rift developed between Roosevelt and his anointed[5][6] successor as President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt attempted in 1912 to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft, and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson. After the election, Roosevelt embarked on a major expedition to South America; the river on which he traveled now bears his name. He contracted malaria on the trip, which damaged his health, and he died a few years later, at the age of 60. Roosevelt has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

In all, he would be applauding yesterdays efforts.

It can be both inspiring and utterly depressing to look back at the quality of leadership we had in this country in the past, both on the left and on the right. Without Teddy R's trust busting, the country could well have descended into chaos. And without his appreciation for public spaces, we might well have far fewer of our most treasured national parks today.

Back then, it seemed a large portion of the electorate on both sides of the spectrum had an appreciation for intellectual abilities and actually admired leaders who were the best, brightest, and most educated. Today, well... can you imagine Bush or Palin holding any sort of meaningful conversation with any of the great Republican leaders of the past?

ahasuerus99 says

Coverage: Expanding coverage is both a good and a bad thing. For those people without coverage, it’s great. For those with, it’s terrible. The math is simple. Say that our medical system is capable of producing 100 million units of health care (there is a limit, based on how many nurses, doctors, and facilities we have; if we increase any of these, we’re increasing the total cost, which would cut into the previous section’s credibility, not to mention an increase in doctors would require the AMA’s approval, which isn’t likely). Say that before this, there were two hundred million people insured. This would mean there was enough health care for each person to have one half of a unit. Increasing the amount of consumers means there is only .43 units available for each. Do all of us currently feel we are receiving as much care as quickly as we would like. Judging by the six month to a year waits for many specialists, I doubt it. This is common sense and basic logic, unless we increase the total amount of something, dividing it by more people will not improve the outcomes for the people who already have it. So this is a gain for 32 million, a loss for all the previously insured. From a humanitarian point of view this is probably worth it, to care for the least fortunate, but it is still a potential issue.

The huge, glaring flaw with this argument is that the uninsured *ARE* currently getting health care. Every day, poor, uninsured people show up in emergency rooms. Those of us who are paying insurance premiums are paying for them already.

Worse, because these people are constantly avoiding using the 0.1 "units" of health care that they could get from basic preventative care, they're instead using 10 or 20 "units" when they show up in the emergency room.

One of the things that stands out constantly when comparing the US and other wealthy nation's health care systems is that americans overwhelmingly avoid routine preventative care.

ahasuerus99 says

This mostly exists to force young able-bodied people to buy insurance, because they are currently opting out. This is financially bad for young able-bodied people.

Until they get pregnant. Or hit by a car.

More importantly, there are serious questions of constitutionality in regards to this. Many New Deal Programs were declared unconstitutional, this could be headed the same way. Though congress can pass laws that do a number of things and bar a number of things, there are questions as to what power congress has to compel behavior except in cases of national emergency (the draft). Most conservatives oppose this simply because they consider themselves to be in favor of the most freedom possible, and this is certainly a step away from that. Any mandate is a step away from individual freedom.

Most "conservatives" oppose this because they'll oppose anything that the democrats want to do. If they were serious about "the most freedom possible", they'd be pushing for the elimination of medicare. Too bad they're pussies.

There are no shortage of arch conservatives opining that if there's not a secret loophole already SOME WAY WILL BE FOUND to offer illegals healthcare. Amendment or trapdoor or what have you, they are convinced we are on the slippery slope and it's only a matter of time until some Federal agent is knocking on the door confiscating not only all their money but demanding a kidney so they can cure Consuela. You don't have to dig very far to find such opinionating, and the fact that it's not true has not stopped widespread fear-mongering about it.

re: forcing people to buy insurance. car insurance is mandatory in my state and probably in the other 49 yet there doesn't seem to be any ongoing problem because of this.

Oh no, illegal immigrants might be able to buy health insurance instead of the free health care that they already enjoy at any emergency room.

and then they'll take our jobs!

Kevin says

Most “conservatives” oppose this because they’ll oppose anything that the democrats want to do. If they were serious about “the most freedom possible”, they’d be pushing for the elimination of medicare. Too bad they’re pussies.

I'm sure there might be some other reasons as well, but it is much easier to just boil down your opponents arguments to something that they do not resemble, than it is to listen and think about it, ironically while being on a soap box about the other side not listening and thinking...? As far as the very last statement: not specifically to Medicare, but applied in general - I totally agree.

@Kevin

Most conservatives I know would like to push for the end of Medicare, Social Security, and most social programs. There's just not very many conservatives. Most conservatives despise the Republican party almost as much as the Democrat party, and are constantly forced into a lesser of two evils position. My father, for example, could not bring himself to vote for John McCain for President (he lives in Arizona), so he didn't vote. He also didn't vote for Bush the second time, and he has registered as Independent for the last ten years. Truthfully, the Libertarian party is much closer to a true conservative platform than is the Republican party.

@Vicente

The illegal alien issue is always interesting to me, because I believe there is a fantastic, simple solution to the problem. Make legal immigration very easy, then seal the borders. If people can come to America (as they should be able to) easily and legally, then there should be less opposition to a stricter enforcement of the border, which would stand a slightly better chance of keeping out the criminals (which do make up an unfortunate percentage of illegal immigrants) and drugs. I grew up in a border town (Yuma, AZ) and have had many experiences with both the best and the worst of the immigration issue, but I will testify that the vast majority of people coming to this country just want to help their families. And I will also testify that without immigrants, the citrus fields would not be getting picked on a 115 degree day.

jzamora says

re: forcing people to buy insurance. car insurance is mandatory in my state and probably in the other 49 yet there doesn’t seem to be any ongoing problem because of this.

Really? Even if you don't have a car?

Paralithodes says

jzamora says

re: forcing people to buy insurance. car insurance is mandatory in my state and probably in the other 49 yet there doesn’t seem to be any ongoing problem because of this.

Really? Even if you don’t have a car?

Yes. It has got nothing to do with owning a car. It has everything to do with _driving_ a car. For eg: Rented, borrowed from family/friends, or provided by the employer. You drive, someone has to cover you.

The only thing missing is FREEDOM.