Over the last few months the President has made it clear that he wants so called “Health care reform” to be on his desk by the time Congress leaves for their annual August recess. There are doubts about that happening and much of the resasons have to do with the nagging uncertainty of the public for the scheme, the massive (and underestimated) multi-trillion dollar price tag and the proposed tax increases to pay for the plan itself.
While in Rome, Obama met the Pope and agreed that though he disagreed with the pontiff on the “right to choose” issue, he was very interested in reducing the number of abortions in the US and across the planet.
So, as I mentioned last week – perhaps there is a strategy he can use that he already backs that will enable the result he claims to want.
On the environment, Obama supports the so called “Cap and Trade” aka “Cap and tax” scheme which Obama says will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Without going into what cap & trade is and why it cannot work, I will humor the President and assume for argument’s sake that it will.
Why not propose a cap and trade for abortions?
Give everybody a “quota” for abortions and let those who exceed theirs buy credits from someone who has credit to spare. It could be a jobs creator (as Obama claims for cap & trade for carbon).
The horror!
How could anyone suggest such a stupid scheme when it comes to the “right” to abortion? We are talking about lives.
They will say that it cannot work. People won’t go for it.
I agree.
So what else could he propose?
A government option in health care coverage will lead to government run health care. At that point, when a budget crisis emerges (like now and the next 100 years due to massive spending) limited supplies of services and medicine will force the government to ration the supply of abortions and for births.
Worse yet, if we are moving to the cradle to grave government care then we will be forced to limit the number of kids born that need care and food. All that care in food costs money. Money is in short supply these days.
Perhaps this could lead to a requirement that if you take aid, you must not have more children. If you get pregnant you may be compelled to agree that you will have an abortion or face a loss of coverage should you accidentally get pregnant.
You don’t believe it could happen?
Visit China, where health care is a right and women are few due to a limit on children per household.
July 17, 2009 at 2:22 am |
“Why not propose a cap and trade for abortions?
Give everybody a “quota” for abortions and let those who exceed theirs buy credits from someone who has credit to spare. It could be a jobs creator (as Obama claims for cap & trade for carbon).
The horror!”
Perfectly absurd. Did you catch that Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsburg admitted that the fear of a population explosion colored the decision in Roe v. Wade? Glad to see that our laws don’t rest on popular sentiment or anything (like the inane, discredited “The Population Bomb” by Paul Erlich, who predicted an apocalyptic famine in 20 years. That was in the late 1960s, early 70s.)
July 30, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
In Canada, abortion is legal and financed. We have a national health care plan. You can still have a private plan that’s better (which is not that hard), but if you don’t work, or your employer doesn’t offer you insurance (which is my case), then you have something to rely on.
-Medications? Covered at 69%
-Dental? Not covered
-Eye? Not covered
-Hospital fees? 100% covered
-Doctor visits? 100% covered
-Blood tests and other similar tests? 100% covered if on their list (the most common are, obscure tests are not covered however).
Who wants to mortgage their house to simply pay for their treatment? Who wants their employer to get an extremely high surcharge on their employer’s plan until they are fired (and chances are, this will be a big argument in favor of their being dismissed) in case of incurable diseases like cancer?
Who wants an ineffective insurance when you need it most? Who wants the possibility of having no coverage at all when they need it most?
Apparently those who vote against the health plan do. Or they might be rich enough that 1 million a year in treatment costs is nothing to them.
July 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
Oh, forgot to add. Canada has a lower abortion rate per capita than the US, even though we have no pro-life vs pro-choice debates or doctors “right not to do their work” thingies.
July 30, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
Schala,
Canada is roughly 1/10th the population of the United States. Where do Canadians go when they cannot get care at home?
No one wants ineffective insurance or no coverage when they need it. But people must make the choice to pay and save for rainy days. If people are dependent on employers or government to “pay for it” you know who really pays – YOU.
In the USA, we have a document called the Constitution that is the rule book for what our government is and most important – IS NOT allowed to do. Nowhere in the document does it define or allow for charity by the government. Though well meaning, no US legislator, judge or President may place the charity of one over any other. They simply do not have the authority to take money collected from taxpayers and divert those dollars to those deemed “in need”. Who is to say that someone who paid their taxes is not more so in need than those who are deemed eligible to receive free health care, coverage or insurance?
If universal ACCESS is what you want (so that responsible people can decide that they don’t want $1million mortgage to pay for medical care) then the tax code can be used to provide every tax filer a credit per person that will allow them to purchase the coverage of their choice. One of those choices is to self fund, another is to purchase “catastrophic only” coverage (usually much less expensive) and to pay for everything else out of the balance saved. Others yet, will opt to have a third party pay for every visit, routine included.
Once the USA goes the way of Canada and the other socialized states, there will be nowhere in the Americas to go for quality health care.
Once the USA heads into bankruptcy due to the trillions in additional spending and can no longer defend the world with massive defense allotments, who will you turn to? China? They will be the debt holders repossessing your southern neighbors. It might be wise to start a crash course in mandarin.
Oh – on the abortion “thingie” – Canada also has a much larger percentage of the population self-identifying as Catholics. Perhaps that is a factor? Who knows? Government should not be involved in any of this.
July 30, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
Catholics vs Protestants? In any case the rate is lower here, in Quebec province, the province who is the least religious of all, due to betrayal by the Duplessis provincial government in the late 1950s, which gave rise to indifference to religion (Duplessis abused his power and included the Catholic church in this) especially from French-Canadians (who represent over 80% of the province).
I’m “officially” Catholic. But in practice? The only benefit I have from being officially such is I can marry in a church (which is pretty). I don’t go to church regularly, or even “sometimes”. Last time I went was from a relative’s baptism 5-6 years ago. The time before that was similarly spaced.
Canada is not bankrupt. Our debt is approaching 600 billion. With 1/10 or even 1/11 of the US population, you’d expect 1/11 of the debt. The factor is almost 22 though (13 trillions vs 600 billions). If not for the recession, we would be making heavy surplus, as we have for the last decade. Yes with that public healthcare plan. Funded by 35 million people, for 35 million people.
Everyone pays taxes unless they’re on welfare. And for having been on it a little while, I can tell you it’s not much comfort unless you’re very sick. You can’t afford an apartment, even the smallest ones. Until being laid off recently, from a job that offered no insurance, I had more money, but still not enough to offer myself my own apartment (and it was a full-time job). Yet I’m supposed to save for rainy days? Where am I supposed to get that money from?
I’m glad I only pay 35$ from my monthly 100$ prescriptions. I’m glad that when I go see my doctor for a random ailment, it doesn’t cost me 200$. And I’m glad that my yearly bloodwork is free of charge. Because if it wasn’t, I couldn’t afford it. Haven’t been to the dentist in 4 years. I’m glad to have a perfect vision, cause I couldn’t afford glasses if I needed some either.
I’m not much of an outlier, making just short of 20,000$ Canadian a year (about 18,000$ US), I’m in the majority. I almost laugh when people speak of taxing people making 1 million a year or more. I’d make that in a lifetime with luck.
July 30, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
Schala,
You are welcome. I and the rest of the remaining free(ish) health care world are paying higher prices thanks to cost shifting.
As for where you are to get the money, if the tax burden and mandated employer paid system were lessened, perhaps there would be more work and money for you to allocate as you wish.
Thanks for bravely joining the discussion. Your opinion and comments are welcome.
July 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
Thanks Russ.
I stumbled on a similar discussion on Alas, a blog, about the Obama healthcare plan and whatever it could accomplish. I’m reading it now.
I’m usually not much for politics, too much entangled there that makes little sense, but actually happens. Healthcare, however, touches more of a cord with me.
Isn’t this how private insurers work in ths US?:
“People with pre-existing conditions will be “covered” with million dollar deductibles, and $20,000 co-pays.” (quoting someone from Alas, a blog, in the comments).
I heard a story that pretty much confirms this. And god forbid you change job, are laid off, or for a reason or another have to leave then retake another insurance, now with a pre-existing condition that wasn’t pre-existing when you worked at that other place (as in, you got it while there).
You’re forced to keep that bad job (becoming bad because you wanted it temporarily for a few years, are moving, or your condition no longer allows you to do it), if you can, because otherwise you’ll declare bankrupcy and have to be on welfare (because no one wants to hire someone with a 1 million / year surcharge).
July 30, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
Fact of life: Everyone dies someday.
But possibly not before getting cancer or something else equally crippling, and you might be younger than 65 by then, and thus, not retired. Private insurers pretty much force you to become retired though. Few people have the income to sustain this, money saved up or not. Even having a fully paid 500,000$ house (which is far from the case for the majority of people).
Everyone thinks it happens to others, not them. Until it happens to them, then they complain about the system that they praised before. But since it happens to few people (relatively, at the same time), the status quo remains anyways.
July 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
It is still legal to own your own policy (democrats refuse tomake the costs tax deductible and will make them illegal under Obamacare) and some include a health savings account that lets you use some of your premium towards medical related expenses.
I understand your fears but insurance companies need to be profitable or they will cease to exist. Even the US Medicare system is approaching insolvency and will have to face the facts that one cannot insure health. There are no guarantees anyway. Anyone who makes promises like that is lying.
The reason some stay in bad jobs is for the reasons you state. A bettetr fix would be to give every tax payer an allowance to purchase coverage. That way job or no job you’d have coverage.