We Don't Like the Bill for Specific Reasons, But Why Exactly Don't Tea Partiers Like the Health Care Reform Bill

Someone asked via email:

What is the far right mad about?  It upsets me that this Admin' and many Democrats think it's a good thing to force people to get health insurance.  The argument being I guess that the 'system' can not work unless everyone has health insurance.  I don't buy that, but even if so.....

I think our government has no right to do this. But then I'm an unusual Democrat; I guess just by default more than anything.  I am more opposed to the government forcing stuff on people than most people. At least stuff that does not go to protect other people's rights.  Like the right to clean air or water, or to reasonable freedom from excessive pollution and bio-accumulating toxins.  The right to some privacy, etc. 

Fluoride in drinking water is a good example of overwrought government -- crazy as that sounds. I like doing things collective that make sense and don't impinge upon freedom. I see a potential health issue here where people have concerns about it that at least according to some medicine are legitimate; and thus see the forced inclusion of this in everyone's water supply as somewhat of an outrageous and needless philosophical imposition, and stupid. If there is concern, just give people toothpaste, for crying out loud.  Let it be up to them to brush their teeth regularly.  So I see things differently.

But is this what the far right is mad about? That it "forces" people to get health insurance that they largely really have anyway? They seemed to favor so much big, intruding government under the Bush administration that it was scary. And they seem to favor a lot of big government stuff; more unchecked power - so long as it is not Obama or another Democrat who has it; a bigger fear of differing opinions and different types of people; more rules regarding personal choices and morality, more government intrusion into what are individual, private decisions; and more stereotyping by group or race.  May be this is wrong, but that's the way it seems to me. But what is it about this health care plan that has them so riled? Have they ever said, or has it just become pure rhetoric all the time?

Is it that employers are forced to get health insurance for employees? I think I'm against that too. Probably big time. But I probably need more information; am no expert on the economics or the philosophy of it.

This seemed like a good question. We hear all the time how many who are political opponents of Democrats hate this bill. But what specifically about the bill is it that they hate?

Maybe HERE's why they don't like it:

Glenn Rounsevell, 88, a retired State Department employee from Falls Church [Virginia], said this year he will vote the tea party way. "It's terrible," he said of the new health care law, "because of the amount of money that is being proposed and the way it was put together in secret."

Of course. It was all a secret. The Republicans tried and tried to participate to create a better bill, but the Dems just shut them, and everybody out. Hell,nobody even said the words health care reform" in America until what, two weeks ago or something? 

The amount of money being proposed?  The bill is designed, properly or improperly, to lower health care costs.  And lowering costs is a good goal.  Last year, the only thing government spent more money on than health care, was national defense.  And that, by only about four percent, total.

Forcing people to get health insurance might be an unwieldy imposition. And there may not be enough in this bill, despite many claims to the contrary, to cut costs of these same insurance companies:  companies whom the government is now forcibly throwing extra business to.  But could it be that this person has heard so much generic, usually misleading, and often even venomous rhetoric against it for over half a year, that he has come to hate it without even really knowing why?

Tiger Jokes, and a Fox Story

...
Somewhat pilfered from here:

Q: Who's the only person who can beat Tiger with a golf club?
A: His Wife.

Q: What was Tiger's shortest drive since an errant tee shot at the US Open?
A: When he pulled out of his driveway early on a friday morning last month right after his wife found out about his shenanigans.

Q: What's' the only time Tiger has ever failed to drive 300 yards?

Q: Why did Tiger crash into both a tree and a fire hydrant?
A: He couldn’t decide between a wood and an iron

Q: Why did Gillette drop his advertising contract?
A: Tiger admitted that car crash was the closest shave he'd ever had.

Q: What was Tiger Woods doing out at 2.30 in the morning?
A: He’d gone clubbing

Q: What’s the difference between a car and a golf ball?
A: Tiger can drive a ball 400 yards.

Q: What did Tiger shoot with his Automobile collection on that same early Friday morning?
A: A hole in one.

And, last one: What religions should Tiger A) give up, and B) convert to, in order to be able to recover as a person? Don't know? Click here.

Bonus question: What does the word "proselytize" mean?

Scary Parallel Logic

No, it didn't.  Did it?

A popular blog perhaps tried to insinuate that lack of health insurance is worse than terrorism.

We could analyze all of the problems in this comparison for pages.  But, simply put, this is like arguing that murder is no big deal because "people die in hospitals every day." Actually, it's not just "like" arguing that, it kind of is that.

The number one point of course being that medical care may not be needed; we control our own health to a large extent; even with health insurance one can still get bad medical care, or even good medical care may fail; while not nearly as effective we do have emergency rooms (not an endorsement for a health care plan being "emergency rooms" which are overused, often don't prevent what will lead to death where good care might have, and are incredibly inefficient and a last resort, but we do have them); there is no element of a purposeful engagement in the most heinous hijacking of liberty known to man -- the purposeful killing; and one can of course provided circumstances are not too unfavorable, work to get health insurance or save enough to cover at least some medical care.

This is not to say that medical care in this country is not a debacle. It is.  But that is not the point of this post. It is to say that false comparisons, like "the number of people that die from skiing accidents, and the number of people that die from being robbed nyc city streets is the same, so what's the big deal about being robbed!" are really missing the boat.

Still, in fairness to that blog, it is worth pointing out that lack of insurance, at least under our current system, does lead to deaths in some cases, that otherwise could have been prevented.  That's just a reality, and it's not a good one.  But while we think health care, and in particular health care insurance, is ripe for reform in a country where health care costs (both to government and citizens) are spiraling ridiculously out of control while many people's health care is in fact compromised, we don't think any bill is better than no bill.  In fact, we think it is a lot worse.

Health Care "Reform:" Kill or Change This Bill

"Health Care": A bill that puts even more rules on people, yet does not address the health insurance cost issue, is like trying to fix a bus by putting on a new tailpipe and hood,and throwing more sand in an already bad working engine.

Shorter version: A health care bill that throws on more rules, and doesn't address health insurance costs, is like trying to fix a broken pipe by requiring even more people to spend money buying the oil that flows through it.

When Howard Dean, M.D., former presidential candidate, former Governor, former head of the DNC, and a huge advocate of health insurance reform, says its a bad bill, it says something.

Perhaps in order to "appease" Republicans, who aren't voting for this bill anyway, all Democrats have managed to do is make some of the non stop criticism that Republicans have been hurling (much like one throws mud at a wall hoping some will stick) valid.

It's a bad bill. It's bad legislation. It's more big government. It's more mandated control. It won't provide the type of health security for everybody that advocates of this desire (whether right or wrong to do this, what else other than "cost" is the point?), and it won't do anything to address the real problem with health care in this country: Spiraling costs, and in particular, health insurance costs.

A bad bill is not better than no bill. Excesive health insurance -- rather than health insurance only for expensive, unexpected health crises -- is the problem, not the solution. This bill does nothing to address that, and only adds to it. In fact, Dean says its a "bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

Ditch, or substantively change, this bill. Address the problem. For profit health insurance that everyone, from the government, consumers, to medical personnel, are all being held hostage by. Provide a competitive option, or decrease incentives to have broad based "non essential" for profit health coverage; excessive coverage which is soaking up enormous amounts of government and consumer money, for no return. Yet all this bill would do is add to this it.

That's not reform. That's just more rules.

Perhaps in order to "appease" Republicans, who aren't voting for this bill anyway, all Democrats have managed to do is make some of the non stop criticism that Republicans have been hurling (much like one throws mud at a wall hoping some will stick) valid.

It's a bad bill. It's bad legislation.  It's more big government. It's more mandated control. It won't provide the type of health security for everybody that advocates of this desire (whether right or wrong to do this, what else other than "cost" is the point?), and it won't do anything to address the real problem with health care in this country:  Spiraling costs, and in particular, health insurance costs.

A bad bill is not better than no bill.  Excesive health insurance, rather than health insurance only for expensive, unexpected health crisis', is the problem, not the solution. This bill does nothing to address that, and only adds to it. In fact, Dean says its a "bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

Ditch this bill. Start over. Address the problem. For profit health insurance that everyone, from the government, consumers, to medical personnel, are all being held hostage by.  Provide a competitive option, or decrease incentives to have broad based "non essential" for profit health coverage; excessive coverage which is soaking up enormous amounts of government and consumer money, for no return. Yet all this bill would do is add to this it.

That's not reform.  That's just more rules.