Deceptive Health Care Reform

Deceptive Health Care Reform


The legislation would extend health insurance coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans while reducing the federal deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  

So the next time you want help from me, this is what you will get: I will tell you to help yourself or else I am going to fine you a bunch of money. Then I’ll go tell everyone I know that I’ve “extended” help to you.

Do you like that?

This is what you get when you look for the federal government to “help” you.

5 thoughts on “Deceptive Health Care Reform

  1. This statement has no substance. Who is “I” in the statement and where do you get this “I will tell you to help yourself”? It is an ambiguous statement not based on any facts that are explained in the statement. If you are going to make such a statement you should clearly show how what you say is documented in what you are trying to refute, otherwise why should I take you seriously?

    1. Hello Paul,

      I’ve read your comment several times and I still don’t understand your point so it is difficult to respond.

      Maybe you didn’t read the CNN article and therefore don’t understand my post.

      Read the entire CNN article. I think you’ll get it then.

  2. Hi

    <!– URL added by commenter: www .newbeltane-techmedia .com –>

    Perhaps as a Brit I have no right to comment but I will… view it as a friendly comment from across the Pond.

    As most Americans know, in the UK we have a National Health Service. Now, lately, some conservative commentators have felt the need to abuse our health care system and to generally look down on our system as some creation of a Stalinist 5-year plan and generally a socialist system intended to deprive individual of inalienable rights and so forth. Well, such views are frankly insulting to the great British public at large. The vast majority of UK citizens, whatever their politics and social class, value our NHS highly and are justly proud of it. Sure, it isn't perfect but at least its universally available (yes I know that where you live – the so-called 'postal code lottery" – can affect how quick you get seen by a specialist etc) and free at the point of need/delivery.

    The main points, as I see it are:

    1. Its universal (with some imperfections)

    2. Its free at pint of need and delivery

    3. Its cheap – much cheaper in terms of GNP than any other comparable system

    4. Its effective – lifespans are increasing and general heath of the population is increasing

    From a personal perspective, I wouldn't be here today if we didn't have our NHS. I have had life-threatening illnesses and traumas treated (free of charge) over the years, including pioneering brain surgery, by some of the best doctors in the world at some f the best hospitals in the world.. I know because I worked at them as a nurse in ICU/CCU. Every day I depend on medication that enables me to work and lead a relatively normal life.. I do pay a small charge for this as medication is not entirely free except for around 60% of those who receive it, either due to their actual medical conditions or their income. Still, I can have as many prescriptions as I need for just £10 (@ $16) a month.

    Now, coming to the US system, from our perspective we can't understand why the richest nation there has ever been can't provide its population with a universal health care system that gives everyone the same basic access to services, without demanding they sell their houses to afford care and put up with second-rate health services for the poor and low-income members of society.

    If anyone would care to enlighten me I would be happy to hear. All In know is that talking to my US friends the US situation is in desperate need of improvement and that the system here, in France and other European countries have a lot going for them.

    As say, I'm a Brit so you may feel I am talking rubbish and you can just ignore my questions but i assure you they are are genuine. Finally, as a Christian, I see it as fundamentally important to care for those in need and not just to give them the crumbs from the table but the best we can.

    1. Hello Steven,

      Thank you for participating in the Thirst for Freedom.


      There are a lot of us in the U.S. that do not want what you have in Britain. Unfortunately there is no way for us to have a closed debate when the whole world can read our news, watch our news, or catch our news on the internet. I am sad that you find this insulting. My recommendation would be that you tune out of the debate if you find it insulting. We need to debate these things while deciding what we are going to do, regardless of what folks in other nations (even friends like the U.K.) think of us.

      I do not want what you have in Britain. I don’t want to be made dependent on the American National Government in any way for my health care. This is slavery. I also don’t want our National Government to tell me I have to buy insurance (insurance according to their standards) whether I want it or not.

      You said that:

      From a personal perspective, I wouldn’t be here today if we didn’t have our NHS. I have had life-threatening illnesses and traumas treated (free of charge) over the years

      Actually, you don’t know that. It is very possible that you would be just fine even if there were no NHS in Britain. Friends may have helped. Your church may have helped. A charity may have helped. You might have found a way to pay the bills.

      That is one of the problems with putting Health Care under national control in any way. Proponents will always be able to point to someone getting health care and say “see, look at that, it is working!” It may have worked just fine or better without the National Government.

      You used the word “free” a lot in your comment. You then clarified “at the point of need and delivery.” Your health care was not free though. Someone paid for it. Someone always does. Maybe you didn’t, but someone did.

      You also said:

      Now, coming to the US system, from our perspective we can’t understand why the richest nation there has ever been can’t provide its population with a universal health care system…”

      You talk about a “nation” providing. You mean the government. I for one am not going to do or not do anything based on whether or not you understand it.

      Apparently you are willing to trade your liberty for dependence on the National Government. I am not. I don’t mind interdependence (as opposed to dependence) on my neighbors, family, church, and friends; but I’m not interested in elitists in Washington D.C. “helping” me.

      You mention in the end that:

      …as a Christian, I see it as fundamentally important to care for those in need and not just to give them the crumbs from the table but the best we can.

      I haven’t met a Christian who doesn’t believe that. Some are willing to use force (government) to confiscate wealth from some people in order to distribute to those who “have need,” I am not. There is nothing Christian about socialist ideas. Nothing. Stealing from “the rich” to give to “the poor” will never start being right. Your statement implies that those who disapprove of government mandated health care do not care about or have a plan to help those in need. This is a false assumption. Some of us have chosen the wisdom to recognize the long term devastating impact of socialism. It will destroy any society that embraces it in the long run. While it may appear good in the short run, it will make dependent slaves of the people and destroy incentive to do what God mandated us to do: “be fruitful and multiply and take dominion…” Destroy this and you destroy society.

      I hope I don’t seem abrupt, but you wrote a lot. 🙂

      1. <font color="red">ThirstyJon's Response is in red</font>

        Thanks for replying. Just to clarify.. what some of us in the UK find insulting is not that you hold differing views but that some commentators decide to make insulting comments about our system. You are of course entitled to agree amongst yourselves what system of health care as a nation you wish to have but it doesn't mean you can insult the system that others have adopted.

        <font color="red">I'm not sure how to respond to that because your previous comment seemed to be implying that criticizing the NHS = Offense. I have no problem with folks debating whether or not they like the British system, especially because the proponents of health care "reform" in the U.S. often bring up the U.K. or other European systems in order to push their agenda.</font>

        Now, re your point about slavery being equated with government health care… that's just using emotional language and doesn't do justice to your argument. I think anyone whose ancestors were slaves would be insulted by it too. Taking your logic further, any form of government support would be slavery too.. including defence, public education and other services.

        <font color="red">Nope. Not just emotional language. The bible talks about the "borrower being slave to the lender." Is that referring to slavery in the way we understand African slavery? Is the Bible using emotional language? There are other forms of slavery than being kidnapped and sold as property. If anyone is insulted by that they are not listening to what I am saying. And no, it does not follow logically that other forms of government support are necessarily slavery (although they could be.) If it creates dependence on the Civil Government it may be a form of slavery.</font>

        There used to be those in the UK who argued along the same lines that they could withhold part of their taxes because they didn't agree with government policy on defence (nuclear deterrence etc). Doesn't really hold water… if you are part of society then you will always have to compromise on some things. Either that or go live on an island on your own or with like-minded folk. Bit like looking for the perfect church!

        <font color="red">Actually, one does not have to compromise on following one's conscience. Ever. It does hold water for people to refuse to compromise their conscience. And the health care reform is not law yet. We are trying to avoid that disaster.</font>

        Now, re your point about my personal experience. I think I am better placed to know what would have happened without the NHS! We who know our history (and some of our grand-parents know from personal experience too) what life was like before the NHS (its a relatively new thing really, as it was formed in 1948 and really only came into its present form in the last twenty years or so). What we had before was frankly terrible, iniquitous and totally not universal, effective or socially just. Sorry about the 'socially' word… too close to socialist I know for most Americans but we are not communists here either!

        <font color="red">I don't buy your argument that if something is not universally available it is not just. Especially because by "available" you mean "paid for by someone else." In fact, if there are those in Britain that want to opt out of your system but are being compelled to pay for the health care of others by force of government than the system you have now is not just.</font>

        As for the free bit.. I know that someone pays.. the point is that whether you can afford to pay or not as an individual, in our society there is a consensus that if everyone pays something then its more just, everyone benefits whatever their situation and in the end its cheaper. Rich people have always been happy to contribute through taxes to this system here and they always have the option of topping up their health care with private insurance if they wish. Now, for almost 20 years I worked in the health sector as a nurse, in both the NHS and Private sectors and I know from personal experience that Private isn't any better, but you get more of the trimmings. better rooms, more privacy, better curtains etc. Honestly, the care is often better in NHS hospitals as there is better cover, more doctors and nurses around etc. That's why even Lords and Ladies, Prime Ministers and CEO's are happy to be treated by the NHS… I know because I have looked after them.

        <font color="red">If everyone is voluntarily contributing that is their choice. If they are being forced to contribute by government than you are not accurately describing what is going on.</font>

        Finally, we in the UK haven't traded our liberty because we accept that some things are provided by the State using the taxes that we mandate to pay. <font color="red">(I vehemently disagree.)</font> Also your views on socialism seem confused and mixed up with political events associated with communism. Many societies in Europe have adopted a socialist model and are thriving. Scandinavian countries typically pay more taxes than we do in the UK but have higher standards of living etc, more stable governments and have higher educational performance than either the UK or US. I doubt any of them will give up the liberty they have for the tyranny of the rich and powerful. <font color="red">(If what you are saying is true then they already have given themselves up to tyranny. It is only a manner of time before it starts to manifest. Whether it be 10 years or 100 there will be tyranny if you make the state the savior.)</font>

        Finally, let me direct you to an interesting article:

        <font color="red">Don't have time to read it now, maybe later.</font>

        be interested in your views on that one!

        best wishes and have a Happy New year!

        <font color="red">Happy New Year to you as well. Sorry I have to be so short and to the point but you wrote a lot in your comment and I disagree with pretty much all of it. :-)</font>

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.