I'm looking for a health insurance pool in which every else has better health than me. 
On socialized medicine:
It will create a culture of dependency and entitlement that will hurt the already suffering spirit of charity.
It will take away our ability to choose our doctors - we will not be able to avoid going to bad ones.
It will remove all competition in the medical profession. No longer having to compete with each other, the quality of the health care doctors provide will decrease.
It won't work well - less people will receive the health care they need.
It will cost more money than we can afford - it will bankrupt the nation. It will increase our already progressive tax system to an insufferable point.
It will turn politics into more of a power grab than it already is - politicians will control who gets care and who doesn't and this will create problems we cannot foresee.
It will further damage the natural bonds of the family by moving responsibility for medical care into the hands of irresponsible and uninterested bureaucrats.
It will necessarily result in the government paying for abortion, contraception, embryonic stem-cell research and even euthanasia.
It will undermine the rule of law because the government usurpation of the health care industry is unconstitutional.
It will further disrespect the federalist nature of our constitution, causing political instability.
This is just a sketchy list of some of the reasons
Also, conservatives would not propose a new model. Rather, they would work to improve the one we already have.
Zach-
Other than just asserting these things, do you have any hard evidence?
How would, for example, the Obama plan cause any of these things? Most Americans would have a greater ability to chose doctors under the Obama plan than they do now. Coverage of abortion? It is prohibited under federal government plans but covered under 2/3rds of private plans.
Katherine,
This was intended to be a summary of the reasons conservatives oppose state-funded health care. As such, I did not provide arguments but conclusions.
We'd have to go through each of them to discuss the arguments that lead me to those conclusions.
I should say, though, in looking over Obama's health care plan - I just don't believe all of his goals are attainable - his plan is not realistic. I'd like to see the specific legislation he would suggest, not just vague platitudes about solving every problem we've ever had without a hitch.
But back to the discussion. Let's start with the funding of abortions etc. My argument goes like this:
if abortion is legal, and it is,
and if it is considered "women's health care", and it is,
and the state provides health care, and you want it to,
there will be no reason the state will be able to say no to paying for a woman's abortion, because it is part of her health care.
why is this worse than abortion being funded by private insurance companies?
Because everyone will be forced to pay, through their taxes, for abortions. You, me, everyone who opposes abortion in good conscience in the United States will be paying for abortions.
This is not the case now, and will be if Obama's plan goes through.
This is what my evidence is: reason. it's not sociological data or evidence from other countries (although that could be brought to bear on this, too)
Plus, if you were to ask Obama if he supports a woman's right to a state-funded abortion, I bet he would answer yes, a woman has that right.
Zach - My post was not about abortion per se (though you remind me I've been meaning to do a post on that issue), so please confine your responses to the questions raised.
You haven't responded to the heart of the issue:
Just...explain to me why it would be so horrifying to just have universal health care in the United States. Yes it would cost money, and yes, taxes would go up - but so what? Isn't working people not being bankrupted by hospital bills ever again worth a few more percent at tax time? Isn't a society where everyone can go to a doctor when he's sick better than a society where he delays going because then he won't eat or won't be able to buy gas, or can't pay his car payment or whatever?
Give me a good, solid reason to oppose it - not a picking-around-the-edges, "particular statistic 'x' suffers in comparison to America..." reason, but simply-stated summary of why, in principle, it would be so horrible.
Matt,
I was responding to a question asked by Katherine about state-funded health care. It was directly related to this post.
And from my reading I did answer the heart of the question - I gave the reasons conservatives oppose state-funded health care.
You don't like the reasons or what?
Ok - fair enough, Zach. I'll take your response point-by-point:
It will create a culture of dependency and entitlement that will hurt the already suffering spirit of charity.
I'm not sure what you mean by "culture of dependency." The European systems (the single payer ones) would not really affect the culture - plenty of companies in the American system pay their employee's health care premiums, and this doesn't create a "culture of dependency," so it is hard to see why another large entity (the Government) paying those premiums would.
It will take away our ability to choose our doctors - we will not be able to avoid going to bad ones.
I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about here - I've heard that used as an argument, but based on what?
It will remove all competition in the medical profession. No longer having to compete with each other, the quality of the health care doctors provide will decrease.
"Competition" (i.e., leaving everything up to the market) isn't the only means of providing incentives; paying doctors at higher-rated hospitals 10% more than at lower-rated ones could be an alternate approach.
[I'm at work - I'll pick this up when I get home this evening...]
Zach-
Matt is doing a good job on the central question. Just so we can set aside the red herring of abortion, you pose:
"if abortion is legal, and it is,
and if it is considered "women's health care", and it is,
and the state provides health care, and you want it to,
there will be no reason the state will be able to say no to paying for a woman's abortion, because it is part of her health care."
The federal government provides health care now through Medicare, Mediciad, VA and FEHBP. The federal government does say "NO" as to abortion coverage in these programs, so yes it is able and does.
Glad we can settle that.
As far as private companies, anyone one with their retirement invested in a couple of mutual funds is pretty deep into the abortion business.
the Obama plan is to open up FEHBP to all Americans. FEHBP is not allowed to include abortion coverage.
Any person with a couple of mutual funds is
[Response - Continued]
It will cost more money than we can afford - it will bankrupt the nation. It will increase our already progressive tax system to an insufferable point.
Taxes, by the standards of Europe and even American history, are currently lower than they've been in decades. The top marginal rate during the Eisenhower administration was almost 92%. The interest on the national debt is currently $400 billion (thanks almost entirely to Bush's tax-cutting and drunken-sailor spending spree...)
It will turn politics into more of a power grab than it already is - politicians will control who gets care and who doesn't and this will create problems we cannot foresee.
Ok, now I'm really lost...
It will further damage the natural bonds of the family by moving responsibility for medical care into the hands of irresponsible and uninterested bureaucrats.
Families are more damaged by bankruptcy and financial strain than by "irresponsible and uninterested bureaucrats" (besides which, "irresponsible and uninterested bureaucrats" might be a good description of the insurance industry...)
It will necessarily result in the government paying for abortion, contraception, embryonic stem-cell research and even euthanasia.
Again, you lost me...
It will undermine the rule of law because the government usurpation of the health care industry is unconstitutional.
It will further disrespect the federalist nature of our constitution, causing political instability.
These seem to be arguments concerned with subsidiarity - and if it were the case that the national government forbade states (or churches or whoever) from providing health care services, I might be persuaded by this. But it is about reforming the system so that everyone's covered.
ok
Commenting by HaloScan
