You pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare. You are entitled to them. The end.

Is it to your liking? Does it pass the progressive sniff test?

I like the concept of insuring those without insurance, but it is so flawed....

She survived what is usually a deadly cancer at 2. Less then 10% survive it. The insurance company tried to not pay for her treatment (and that is a long story of its own).

After she survived, my sister found that the insurance companies would not cover my niece for anything more than the most basic kid illness and sports injuries. Anything that might be tied to the cancer (like the kidney stones the kid gets), were not covered.

Now, she's fully covered. They can't deny her treatment. And no life time caps. The idea that my niece would have the cancer return, and they'd have no coverage terrified my sister for years.

The bill could be better, but its a good start. Social Security wasn't perfect when it was created, nor was Medicare.

How does the Insurance industry help with Health Care? Why do we need a middle man to rake in huge profits bsed on our health issues? The Prime requisite for our Government is to "Maintain the Health and Welfare of the Nation" Why do you think it refuses to do the very thing?

You save CEO salaries, bonuses, Stock options, Rooms full of bean counters (feeding Death Panels), Highly paid Lobbyists, Company jets, Sales departments...,
What value do insurance companies add to health care? Nothing I can think of.

Government run Single Payer, Universal, Health Care. Everyone is covered.

[center][/center]

... your acquaintance think this is a liberal/conservative issue?

... might have a point if "Obamacare" were a government insurance system, but it isn't: it is a set of regulations on private insurance combined with a government subsidy for low-income people.

Would you have preferred to see that health care initiative take another form?

... because it at least allows for the states to adopt their own (hopefully single-payer) plans, and it will cause many more people to have at least some coverage in the mean time.

Once the good people of Cleveland experience rivers that don't catch fire, that will become their expectation ongoing.

Once people experience cars that don't break down every 5000 miles and tires that don't explode catastrophically, they will come to expect these things all the time.

This list can go on forever, so I will spare you.

It is called progress.

Did you follow the process?

most favoring single-payer, but willing to compromise on Public Option, and a great deal of disappointment when the Obama plan included neither. Obviously people cared.

I followed the process and cared quite a lot about what was in the bill.

The bill was better than nothing, but not much.

most legislation as passed is a work in progress, and will need tweaking if we ever want it to approach perfection.

So we argued among ourselves. But our hearts were and are in the right place: we believe that NO ONE in the US should suffer or die for mere lack of money to treat themselves. We believe that whole thing in the Constitution about promoting the general welfare and that it includes health care.

But your friend has a minor point...After awhile it just becomes a battle of wills and I'm incredibly proud the President saw it through, because he knew that if it didn't happen now, it probably wasn't going to happen in our lifetimes...

My hair has gone gray seeing all these forfeited victories for the GOP all because Dems want to do the 'expedient' thing and back down...I'm glad the USSC threw that shit right back in the repub faces...

for Republicans the more that is run by the Market Place (no, Smith did not believe this... many caveats in the Hand statement), the better. It is far more efficient.

For Democrats some of this belongs in the commons and what otherwise would make sense (unless it is shell oil), the buying power of the government will make this cost less per unit.

Of course the ACA is not single payor either, but let's not futz with technicalities.

... and the lack single payer in the initiative was a major disappointment.

nadin is quite right -- the view that has been beaten into conservatives, and reflected in that individual's comments, is that the government can't do anything right, unless of course it is the military.

If it really is cost and efficiency this person is concerned about you can point out that Medicare is FAR more cost-efficient than the current for-profit health care system....but since this flies in the face of his preconceptions about government he is unlikely to believe it.

Another tact, given conservatives love for all things war, is to bring up the VA. Once those vets tried the VA they didn't want to give it up either. Does he advocate eliminating the VA and letting vets fend for themselves on the open market?

Social Security beats starving. Obamacare beats dying of preventable causes.

Government is us. If we have a need, devising a solution and implementing it is perfectly within our legitimate power.

But it's not "regardless of costs, efficiency and who's footing the bill" but because of it. Private industry COULDN'T efficiently do what Social Security does.

they are republicans, democrats, apathetic, you name it. your acquaintance seems to know that - and what is wrong with the citizens of this immensely wealthy nation having security, of not having to go broke if they get sick?

as for myself, i'm all for single payer health care for everyone. mention perhaps that every other developed country in the world already has government provided health care and the conservatives in those countries love it as much as the liberals. it's kind of a sign of a civilized society, this concept of valuing all of your citizens whether they be rich or poor.

.... that your response will be quite typical of a lot of people here.

I don't know if it's a typical opinion, but I do know that it's common sense, cost less, and fairer for society.

As we Liberals haven't been able to send them all away to our FEMA camps (yet!), and we haven't figured out a way to limit the benefits of those programs to Democrats, we end up serving tons of Republican clients. Damn! Maybe we should fix that.

I would ask him to explain what it is he thinks people are going to be getting that they will "refuse to give up".

It's a bunch of health insurance regulations. That's pretty much all of it.

Your friend apparently thinks "Obamacare" is some kind of government run health insurance program. It's not. It's that simple.

Excellent post.

...end of story.

.... we can predict that the reaction to that will be, "Is that right guaranteed in the Constitution?"

This issue is addressed right in it.

Article 10.

and especially the "Bill of Rights", does not GRANT people rights, it PROHIBITS the government from infringing the rights people already have.

The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall grant citizens the right to...." It says "Congress shall make no law..."

Your right to freedom of speech, religion, a free press, and to peaceably assemble to petition government for redress of grievances is assumed, and government is forbidden from abridging those rights.

In fact, the government is proscribed, or a right is assumed in each amendment:

"... shall not be infringed."

"No soldier shall..."

"The right of the people....shall not be violated"

"No person shall be held....nor shall any person...nor shall be compelled..."

The Sixth and Seventh amendment assume rights and state flat out:

"...the accused shall enjoy..."

"... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

"...shall not be required..."

"...shall not be construed..."

The 10th simply closes loopholes by assuming rights are retained automatically.

"...powers not delegated...nor prohibited...are reserved"

This is a very subtle, but critical, distinction.

I view that the right to healthcare is contained in the preamble as an "assumed" right:

We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The current health care system does NOT promote the "general welfare" of the people, nor does it "insure domestic tranquility". In fact, it does the exact opposite on both counts.

People like your acquaintance need to actually READ and UNDERSTAND the Constitution before they make sweeping claims about what it does, or does not allow.

The story in which it becomes a human right, and acknowledged as such in the US, is waiting to be written. Finding a sincere author would be a good start...

in the conservative sense of the word?

I pay for them every paycheck.

I am, in fact, "entitled' to them in the same way my wife is "entitled" to my life insurance if I die (I paid for it) or I am "entitled" to the money I put in my IRA.

I currently pay around 18% of my income in health care premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. Under a single-payer system, that would drop to around 8%.

Ask your conservative acquaintance why is this a bad thing?

Healthcare "providers" are making a profit off dying in this country.

If you wanna be mad at anyone be mad at THEM for profiting of others misery! People go BANKRUPT when they have a disabled child or get in a car accident - THAT costs them their livelihood so that corporations can profit!!

The person that wrote that is just demented. Ron Paul type demented, let'em die and don't expect ME to give a shit when they do or if they suffer while in the process.

This is the wealthiest country in the world, THE super power and yet we have hungry dying children and elderly in this oh so holier than thou Christian Nation: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Sorry if this is an "angry retort" but it is SICK how they think of this.

I agree with you.

That's why there was so much disappointment with the bill's failure to provide an alternative to the pay and play insurance based health care system that we now have.

If people do get "indoctrinated" it will be because some of the things in the bill are superior to the shitty system we now have - removal of lifetime caps, no more disqualification for pre existing conditions, etc etc.

Which makes the characteristic move of dumbass conservatives (and not a few dumbass Dems, too) of confusing an obligation with an entitlement. That "which" relative clause can be distributed to Obamacare, and to conservative refuseniks who hate Obamacare "because it comes from Obama", although its daddy is in fact Milton Friedman and its mommy is Mitt Romney, as well to witless liberals who think it's actually liberal.

(barely) better than nothing, and it will forever establish the expectation that everybody deserves to be treated for their health related issues, so that's good too.

(S)he is right that, thanks to permanently placing the insurance industry as the only arbiter of delivery and limiting them to profit based on percentage, this abomination will generate upward pressure on the price of health care. It does nothing to make the delivery system more effective or efficient. And who is footing the bill is going to be the very same people that always foot the bill for everything.

Thanks.

And, that's all liberals care about, getting something for nothing.

The first order of business is to get your acquaintance to understand that SS and Medicare are EARNED BENEFITS, and Obamacare is not doling out free healthcare. The second order of business is to get your acquaintance to understand that he and everyone he knows depend on these programs (unless wealthy).

Good Luck because I doubt anything you say will change the idiot's mind. And I seriously doubt they've read the Affordable Care Act.

I hope he reads it carefully. He has much to learn about liberals.

Us - hardworking and rich and pay our way
Them - lazy and not working and live off our taxes

These two groups are always different in the way they try to paint it. There is never any movement from one group to the other.

They seriously don't have a clue what life is really about. The GOP has done far more damage to the middle and lower classes than I even thought was possible, and yet they still get support from those groups. Without ignorance, the GOP wouldn't exist.

because there is no profit in providing medical services for those who cannot afford to pay the premiums that enrich the investors of that industry.

If the capitalists have walked away, then the task falls on the government to step in and prevent further destruction and minimize human suffering, just like it would for any other circumstances that would adversely impact the nation and effect the basic social order of our society.

Ask them if they would buy car insurance that only covers people that don't own or drive a car.

If they say "no" ask them why they are willing to buy health insurance that doesn't cover you when you're sick.

Government or otherwise.

Ask them to name a single person on this planet that DOESN'T require health care at some point in their life.

Yeah...

"ADDICTED" alright!

Just like we are "ADDICTED" to oxygen.

Sometimes teh stupid is too hard to take.

(That "thoughtful" enough?)

And there is a bit of projection there or admission that it would be something the people would like - they just want to characterize it negatively. Notice how that view also sees the people as sheep - they don't know what they want, and it's them damn libruls who are so persuasive.

and tell you if they are a conservative or not. Get off the defensive, but do your homework and identify the current social programs (socialism) we already enjoy and would not give up.

You could mention the Pentagon Budget. What, half our taxes go to rule the world, yet we shrivel in horror about free vaccinations and preventative health care for our citizens. That's why other countries, those not the target of our war machine, can keep their people healthy. They don't tax and spend on endless sand-pounding, foreign folly wars of convenience.

However, for the Conservative Challenged, this one usually at least makes them blink.

Many states require at least some kind of car insurance now to drive a car. Never heard anyone call that socialism, but it is. In fact, insurance in an of itself is socialism. Why? Because when there is a collision, the costs are extraordinarily high that no one person can pay or would cause bankruptcy. If someone hits you and doesn't have insurance and you don't pay extra for uninsured or under-insured, your personal assets are at risk.

I had an idiot make a left turn in front of me in an intersection and totaled our car, injured myself, my sister and her son who were in the car. NO INSURANCE...my insurance had to pay for our car and medical bills for three people and we paid for the increased insurance premiums. He had an ancient Ford truck that was barely scratched, got a ticket and went his merry way. Had there been insufficient levels in my insurance, I would have been legally liable. That represents our current health care system in a nutshell...at least untill we actually do put un- or under-insured sick people out on the streets to die, back to Ayn Rand and her Republican disciples.

it is not an objection to the bill. In fact, it is a good sign if enough people feel that the medical insurance they have though the law is indispensable.

Second, while people might come to feel entitled, that does not mean that the law as a whole is an "entitlement." Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the beneficiaries. By and large, so is the new medical insurance.

Third, Democrats certainly cared about individual provisions in the bill such as the public option. That provision was conceded with great reluctance. It is true that some provisions may be changed over time, but others may become entrenched. There are countless US laws that are stuck in the past because changing them is so difficult. This is a serious concern, especially if the law works relatively well and there is no call for a massive overhaul.

Fourth, the phrase "people get addicted to the government insurance system" is misleading. The framework may be set by the federal government, but there is no government insurance per se -- it is all private.

Most right wingers believe that "Obamacare" establishes some kind of government health insurance or health system.

If the bill made people eat crap for 3 meals a day, I seriously doubt people would feel entitled to their crapfeast. From jobless benefits, medicare, social security and the VA are liked because in general they help people and receive higher satisfaction ratings and less overhead cost than private entities.

Another case in point if you are health and of working age and on welfare and a great job came along. There is no indication average Americans would stay on welfare over taking the job.

If liberals didn't care what was in the bill they would not have spent so much time trying to push conservative Dems to support single payer options in the bill. Nuf said.

If the conservative in question is worried about efficiency, point out how tremendously inefficient it is to burden American employers with the costs of insuring their employees--a burden no other nation in the industrialized world places on their citizens' employers.

"If the Liberals were to be honest, they'd say, 'We know that once people consider this Obamacare health care system to be their entitlement, they'll refuse to give it up - like Social Security or Medicare.'

My response to that is, well, of course people will refuse to give up something that helps them tremendously. If they can get better healthcare for less - who wouldn't refuse to give that up? Who wouldn't refuse to give up feeling like they could go to the doctor when they got sick instead of when they were really sick? Who wouldn't refuse to give up the stress of knowing that they were one medical emergency away from losing their house and/or savings? If conservatives were honest, they'd say, "we know that this would really help a lot of people, but we'd rather have that money go to tax cuts for the rich or to defense contractors."

"That's why they didn't really even care what all was in the bill. Just get people indoctrinated and addicted to the government insurance system and they'll all feel entitled to their benefits - regardless of costs, efficiency or who's footing the bill."

That is pretty ridiculous. I think that most liberals would be for single payer insurance; e.g., Medicare for all, and cut the role of private insurance to a supplement, rather than what we're getting. But definitely, we'd like to have people on some kind of program, because the benefits become immediately obvious. "Regardless of costs" is, again, a misnomer. What most liberals would like to do is to roll back the Bush tax cuts and trim the defense budget and pay for it like that. We're not careless about who's paying for it at all. We know exactly who we want to pay for it. We want less money going to the rich and to defense contractors, and not a penny more coming off of the backs of the middle class and the poor.

I wonder why conservatives don't think things through a little more instead of knee-jerk rejecting anything run by the government. I wonder why they don't realize that they're already paying for the uninsured with higher insurance premiums. I wonder why they refuse to see how much more efficient Medicare is than private insurance. I wonder why they don't realize that a society with greater access to healthcare will be a healthier society. I wonder why they don't realize that a healthier society will be a more productive society, and generate more wealth. I wonder why they don't realize that the end result of single payer will be a healthier, more productive, more wealth-generating society that pays less per person for healthcare - so a greater percentage of the greater wealth generation gets kept. I wonder why the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" doesn't make sense to them.

Thanks.

"That's why they didn't really even care what all was in the bill" - he's just making that up.

"They'll all feel entitled to their benefits" - Yes. because they SHOULD. Either you believe human beings should benefit from being in a nation with each other or you don't. If you do, there is nothing illogical or contraversial about wanting people to feel "entitled" to those benefits if the position includes said people understanding that other people are also entitled to theirs. That's the whole goddamn point of being in a nation.

He chooses weasel words to bend the meaning - "addicted", "indoctrinated", these are meaningless. You could just as easily pin these words on gun ownership, which various people feel entitled to. What characterises the position is what it acheives, not what slimy words you can pretend it fits.

I've seen it used quite a lot by British right-wingers, though usually with regard to welfare benefits, rather than universal services such as the NHS.

'they'll all feel entitled to their benefits - regardless of costs, efficiency or who's footing the bill.'

All the evidence is that the American health system is more costly and less efficient than most such systems. As for 'who's footing the bill' - I assume that they, the citizens, are? Right-wingers tend to take the attitude that there is one group that pays taxes, and another that uses public services, and never the twain shall meet, and the latter is sponging off the former - which is rubbish.

But one of the key worries of an economic right-winger is that anyone should feel 'entitled' to help.

First, let me thank all of your for your considered responses. I made the link to this thread available to my acquaintance, and here is response:

I don't see anyone addressing my point - which was about the strategy employed by the Liberals who got the bill passed and the real thinking that I believe motivated them.

If one needs the word "Entitlement" explained in the context of American politics, it's going to hard to have much of a conversation. Buzz, do you know what "Entitlement" means?

My point was very clear. You simply aren't able to refute it. Nor were all your friends at the Democratic Underground. Even as a group you can't knock down or even speak to the point that I made.

You guys argue the merits of the healthcare bill, whether it's about insurance or medical care - which is not what I was doing.
You guys can argue some point about the definition of entitlement, which does not speak to my point.
You guys can bring up Social Security, which has nothing to do with what I said, other than that it is considered an entitlement program - though you and your bunch don't understand that.

You can just keep trying to obfuscate. But, the one thing none of you have done, is speak to my point of the dishonest Liberal strategy employed. And, that's kind of important, because that's the point I made.

Although your words fell on deaf ears, it was not in vain. Others on that discussion board who were unfamiliar with DU were quite impressed.