Published: Monday, July 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
I liked the Bennett/Wyden plan better than I like Obamacare. But even when
Senator Bennett's party controlled both houses of congress and the White
House, he couldn't get it passed.
I would not be a bad idea to have health insurance de-linked from one's
employer. it would be a better idea to create a system that says
healthcare is a national right, and that government funds such a system. In
this way, we all pay into the health care system as individuals and there are no
shirkers. The more you earn or spend, the more you contribute. (Pick a
system.)And by the way, the doctors and hospitals don't have
to be employees and property of the government. Other than Britain or Canada,
this is how things work in first world countries.
"Not my boss's business." I agree, so why force the boss to pay
for it? One of the problems with the Federal Government trying to "fix"
everything is that they are too far removed to make decisions that benefit
individual circumstances. It's the case with healthcare, education,
welfare, etc. Government power was supposed to be localized for a reason. I
agree that letting people choose the healthcare plan that works for them and
their family is a much better solution than blanket coverage.
Bob, referring to the VA system as a single payer system is cherry picking
facts. Not is the VA system a single payer system, more significantly, it is a
single provider system. I am not aware of anyone who is arguing for a single
"With the scandal at the VA having tarnished the idea of a single-payer
system run by the government"Well, that whole sentence undermines Mr.
Bennett's own arguments. Mainley because, it proves he doesn't know
what he's talking about. A single payer system would be where all US
citizens get Medicare(or some similar medical insurance) that is operated by the
government. The VA is a universal system, where the government owns the
hospital, employee's the doctors, nurses and other medical personnel. They
are in no way the same thing.
I don't know how de-coupling insurance from Hobby Lobby's owners would
be workable, by their own act of conscience.If they're
unwilling to provide insurance that includes certain contraceptives,
wouldn't they also be uncomfortable giving the money to their employees,
who in turn could turn around and purchase the same contraceptives? It seems the only way Hobby Lobby could remain plausibly uninvolved is to not
provide healthcare credits at all. Actually, if they boosted the employees
salaries without an insurance credit, the employees could still purchase the
contraceptives in question, which Hobby Lobby would object to. Could they require employees to not purchase those contraceptives, under
threat of termination.This slippery slide has silicone all over it.
Bob, health care decisions are in fact in the hands of individuals, as long as
the health insurance companies agree. I've seen the judgment and decisions
of doctors overruled by health insurance companies. The idea of an unknown,
unseen institution making our decisions has been with us for a long time. So
then the question is, if this is going to be the case, is it better to provide
universal coverage, even though so decisions will be limited by the balancing of
costs vs. benefit? I would say so, yes. Recap: We already have portioned
medical care. Let's make it universal and not worry so much as to which
institutional interest makes the decision. In fact, I would prefer the federal
government because they are not in the business of making money off us.
Esquire: "not in the business of making money off us." Are you kidding?
If laughter could be taxed, would you still make that statement? Those who
don't want to make decisions would do well in any other system in the world
now or in history, which would send a shiver up the spine for most!
Wow. I seldom find myself defending Mr. Bennett, but I must here. While I
don't believe the national government should be involved in health care
outside of regulating interstate commerce, if we are stuck with it doing so, the
plan to let each employee determine the health care program they prefer is much
less onerous than what we have now. Two other quick responses. @IOCC, try
not to exaggerate. HL has never indicated that they are interested in
controlling what their employees do, only opposing paying for things they
disagree with. Big Difference.@esquire, In what world of massive taxes,
fees and required contributions does your final sentence make sense? "I
would prefer the federal government because they are not in the business of
making money off us." And, if you don't think they are making money off
us now, just wait as the debt rises and more is needed to fund those social
security and medicare accounts as more people reach retirement age and start
taking money out of the system that is already in serious trouble.
Giving individuals more control over their health care insurance is the opposite
of what Obamacare is all about.It is a huge wealth redistribution
plan where healthy people are forced to pay way more for insurance than they
actually need in order to pump money into a system that must provide expensive
care to others. If you give people choices, they would opt for cheaper
alternatives and the system would collapse.
“Hobby Lobby's owners' religious convictions are very well
known. ” No, not really. Did you know the owners of the Hobby Lobby
belong to a religion that considers Mormonism a dangerous cult?SCOTUS essentially says this corporation can obstruct federal support for
something that violates its religious beliefs. And “demonically
inspired” Mormonism violates those religious beliefs. Check out the
“Assembly of God Church Statement on the LDS.” Could they eventually
dictate that their taxes go toward Mormon suppression? “Change the tax law so that Hobby Lobby and every other employer can
give its health care expenditures directly to its employees, tax free,
empowering them to control their own money and pick their own plans.”That would be kind of like abolishing social security wouldn’t
it? Would the abolition of social security be next?We could
privatize social security just like GW wanted to do in 2003. And people could
take their money and invest in the stock market. Of course, if we had done as GW
suggested in 2003, much of that money would have been lost in GW’s stock
crash of 2008, wouldn’t it?Maybe we should just avoid
half-baked “Conservative” schemes.
Bob Bennett knows that his plan would never pass Congress. Obama said he was 90%
for it, but realistically knew that it would never pass Congress. Who stopped it? The Republicans in the pay of the insurance companies,
that's who. Bob has only his party to blame for the failure of
I agree with Bob Bennett. The government has no right to force a company to
hold money from its employees to pay for prescriptions. Only the very
uninformed think that a company is paying for those prescriptions out of its own
pockets. Employees are paid a wage. Taxes are withheld. Benefits are
withheld. Social Security (including the employer's "matching
funds" are withheld.Pay the employ 100% of the money earned and
then let that employee pay all the taxes and all the "benefits"
himself. If people had 100% of their paycheck in their possession and then had
to "give" the government the taxes that the government has assessed
there would be a revolt. People would finally understand what the government is
doing.Health care is not a gift from government. It is not a gift
from the employer. It is an expense that every American pays, either directly
or in lieu of wages. Those who have "subsidized" insurance are requiring
you and me to pay for their insurance premiums.
"it can find a way to exempt the rare corporation with strong moral
objections."I know you were only quoting this, Bob, but no
corporation has strong moral objections. My apologies to both Romney and the
Supreme Court, but corporations are not people. They do not have a moral sense.
They can certainly behave in a way that is immoral, but that is a function of
the people who determine the corporate culture. Let's stop talking about
corporations as if they were living, breathing human beings. They are a hunk of
the Hobby Lobby decision was about one thing and only one thing.... federal
government powerthe Feds put on the power play and they lost as they
should haveall of the chatter about women and birth control options
is white noise, the most embarrassing thing about this is really Justice
Ginsburg and her editorial that has nothing to do with jurisprudence, she should
@ Light and Liberty and ShaunMcC, taxes are different than marking up products
and services to make a profit. Taxes are revenue for government services, not
meant to provide a return on investment. If you think taxes are the same,
perhaps you should learn more about the concept of government. You may not like
to pay them, but that doesn't mean you are correct. you aren't.
Republican Bob Bennett does not know what he is talking about as pointed out by
DN readers above.How does a Republican hang around DC for as long as
the former Senator and not know the most basic kind of distinction regarding
"It is the law that makes you free" is probably the most true statement
in the modern world. The war against our federal government is a war
against the rights and freedoms of all Americans. All rights and freedoms of
all Americans depend on the federal government having power and control over all
Americans and their enemies. The government takes freedom from some people so
that all people might have greater more desirable freedoms. If we
remove the control over the health care business, Americans will lose the
freedom to have proper, dependable, responsible and economical health care. The
notion that every individual knows what's best for himself is not
necessarily true in health care. And when we give private individuals control
over our health care we give away out right to know what's best for us.
GaryO: "...Maybe we should just avoid half-baked “Conservative”
schemes."We should avoid ALL half-baked schemes, not just the
conservative ones. Obamacare wasn't even half-baked. Almost no one who
voted for it even bothered to read the bill. The fact that Obama has changed the
law dozens of times (without constitutional authority BTW) since it passed is
proof of how little it was thought out before passing. Unintended consequences
(or maybe they really were intended like losing your doctor) are everywhere with
this law.So I agree with you. Let's avoid the half-baked ideas
(Cap and Trade, Immigration Reform, Gun Control, Legalized Drugs, Wealth
Redistribution, SM Marriage, etc.) I would list some conservative half-baked
ideas too, but for now they have no power to actually get any of them passed.
@ordinaryfolks:"...it would be a better idea to create a system that
says healthcare is a national right..."Healthcare IS a nation
right. If you want/need some care, go to a doctor and get it. If you want
healthcare insurance, go to an insurance company and get it. It ain't
rocket science."...and that government funds such a
system."If the government funds such a system, you will find
that the government will begin to decide about much of your life... such as what
you can drink and eat (except cannabis) and what services you are eligible to
receive. If you get old, and almost everyone will, and need some serious health
care, the government can tell you to go pound sand. Called in some circles
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments