Saturday, February 5, 2011

Obamacare: What's our next step?

If proves anything, it's that the pro-life movement is far from monolithic. I do believe that our diversity is, on the whole, beneficial. However, we have to be careful to avoid infighting. During the initial debate over Obamacare, I was disappointed by the rift that developed regarding pro-life Democrats.

Republicans campaigned very successfully on a "repeal and replace" platform, and Obamacare is back on the table. I don't want us to repeat our same mistakes this time around. So here, as I see it, are the major areas of agreement and disagreement.

Areas of agreement:
1) Our current health care system has serious flaws. We would all like to see more people insured, especially children. There's room for debate about the best solution, but no one seriously disputes that there is a problem.
2) Health care reform should not involve taxpayer funding of abortion. There is broad pro-life support for legislation that would clarify and codify Obama's Executive Order. Even the Catholic Health Association, which denied that Obamacare contained abortion funding to begin with, thinks that this legislation couldn't hurt.

Areas of disagreement:
1) Should we try to improve Obamacare, or do we need to scrap it and start over? Conservatives advocate a policy of "repeal and replace," but do not have the votes to repeal. On the other hand, the liberal pro-life opinion is that there is a lot of good in the bill, and that keeping most of it intact is the best way to promote life and health. (This is also the apparent position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
2) Supposing a "repeal and replace" view, what should be the replacement?
3) Let's not forget about Gunner and other people with disabilities. The National Right to Life Committee has been particularly vocal in its concern rationing is inevitable under Obamacare. With or without Obamacare, how can we practically ensure that society's "undesirables" aren't sent to the end of the line?

Please discuss.


Chris Z. said...

Here's an interesting article about our past:

Chris Z. said...

Repeal the entire bill.

By the way, look at who wrote it.

Plus, remember that it was 2000 something pages and nobody read it. That has little to do with my argument, but it happened and should not be forgotten.

1. Open up interstate trading of Health Insurance.
"allowing individuals to shop for health care across state lines and providing 100 percent tax deductions for healthcare expenses."

2. Reform Health Insurance Savings Accounts

"Encourage portability of health insurance so that workers own their health care plan regardless of job or job status, and allow employers to decide how much they wish to contribute toward their employees’ health care costs."

3. Tort Reform (Preferably by the States)

4. "Voucherize Medicare: Absolutely no one disputes that this government-funded health care program for seniors will put the country on the road to fiscal ruin if nothing is done to contain its runaway spending. It currently consumes over $500 billion. And if current trends persist, by the end of 2082 Medicare will be devouring 19% of gross domestic product--or $3 trillion, almost the entire U.S. budget right now. It will take a heartburn-inducing 135% increase in payroll taxes to bring it into actuarial balance.

The best way of capping the government's liabilities without compromising care is by giving seniors an option: They can take a lump sum to use toward comprehensive coverage or they can stick with the traditional fee-for-service program that offers only limited benefits."

Also, this author may have a good point in her article about the licencing practices of doctors being responsible for our high demand and costs for doctors.

This is a good start to this conversation, but I'm out of time for the day.

Chris Z. said...

oops in the second to last paragraph, "licencing practices of doctors" ought to read "practices of licencing doctors".

Chris Z. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris Z. said...

More on what could be in the bill because of who it's framed after.

GBeck: Convicted Felon & ObamaCare 'Blueprint' Author - Robert Creamer - Invited to State Dinner

Glenn at his best. Even though most of you responding to this blog may hate the guy, this video shows clearly how much different he is than the other guys on the other networks. He's done his homework and always tells his audience to not trust him and do your own homework.

Please at least listen from the beginning up to at least about 3 min and a bit past (pretty much the whole clip).

Notice the red phone link to the Whitehouse again, it's always there. It's been called only once.

Here are the full clips if your interested about the entire segment (the particular segment above is located towards the end of part 1 and on into part 2, below):

Glenn Beck Show - December 7, 2009 - Pt 1 of 8

Glenn Beck Show - December 7 2009 - Pt 2 of 8 said...

On facebook, I received a comment that I should not use the word "Obamacare," that it's pejorative. I promise I didn't mean for it to be. It's just the nickname that's caught on, and it makes sense, since it was and is clearly Obama's central domestic policy objective.