Originally published August 30, 2010 at 9 p.m., updated August 30, 2010 at 9 p.m.
You make an incalculable number of choices in a day. You decide whether to eat lunch at the underground or at the union.
You decide what to eat. You decide whether you should study for that test on Friday, or go out to bars instead.
I’m sure you get the idea by now. After college, the decisions you and I will be making will be a bit more serious.
Take, for example, decisions we make about health care.
After Obama’s health care bill fully goes into effect, the government will possess more power than they ever have before. The more power the government possesses, the bigger it becomes.
The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, said “Government authorities will dictate to insurance companies exactly what health insurance they must sell, to whom they must sell it, and what they can charge.”
I get a bad vibe from this statement. Ask yourself this common sense question: Would you want government authorities to know about your medical history no matter how personal it is?
These are some of the serious decisions that need to be made during and after college. You should have an option as to which health insurance to purchase. There is also the option to not purchase insurance at all or to choose when to purchase it. The decision, however, shouldn’t be dictated to you. You probably know what is best for yourself.
Commenting on the health bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “We will have to pass it first to know what’s in it.” Common sense tells me that this is a very sketchy statement. Exactly how is it beneficial, to any American, to pass a bill before we know the contents? Shouldn’t we, the people, know what is in the bill before anything happens? The bill might not have passed if we had known its contents ahead of time.
A CNN research poll taken at the end of March “finds that 59 percent of Americans now stand opposed to the health care legislation in Congress.” There could be a slight fluctuation in the numbers since it was taken in March. Common sense dictates that we shouldn’t have a bill that a majority of our country is opposed to.
This bill won’t fully go into effect until 2014, though. If it is as great as Obama claims it to be then it should have gone into full effect immediately. That would be the sensible thing to do. This should raise questions, since Obama’s term ends in January 2013.
Almost half of all states have filed lawsuits against the health care bill. Coons vs. Geithner is a new and recent lawsuit that was filed by the Goldwater Institute that claims the bill to be in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
A government with less power gives us the power to make important decisions regarding our health care and overall well-being.
— Robinson is a civil engineering major from Houston, Texas.
A guide to the proposed health care ...
A look at the health care bills that are being passed around ...
Letter to the Editor: Public option
Negative aspects of policy discussed.
Obama’s speech leaves students torn
In a speech to Congress, the president discussed the future of health ...
Politically Correct: The public option
Columnists weigh in on the health care debate.
Group helps students grasp health care
Concerned Active and Aware Students to raise awareness about national debate in ...
Ten Commandments should unite, not divide Americans
Editorial: Show support for health care, but ...
The new package benefits students but the public option should have been ...
Public option makes a leap toward socialism
Government-run health care could crush the operations of the free-market .
Folmsbee: Questions for health care reform
Columnist presents semi-scientific method to better understand the health care situation.
Robinson: Health care law not best option ...
New health law falls short of expectations.
Letter to the Editor: Pro-choice protection
New amendment would make it hard for insurance companies to cover abortion.
Politically correct: Obama’s report card
Columnists weigh in Obama's progress. Cast your vote in The Kansan's poll.
Graduates gamble on health insurance
One third of college graduates are uninsured after graduation; experts advise being ...
Governor’s departure poses problems
Sebelius’ acceptance of HHS secretary leaves Kansas’ future and Obama’s health care ...
Students contemplate Sebelius’ future
Obama aides say Kansas governor might be next Health and Human Services ...
Compton: Win the battle, lose the war
Even with healthcare reform passing, Democrats face a long road ahead in ...
Thompson: Democrats’ reform needs strength
President Obama’s healthcare reform pushes for momentum with help from unexpected endorsements.
Contributed column: Get busy on health care
Public preference absent in news commentary on health care.
Who's not having it
Many students choose to remain abstinent for differing reasons.
Brinker: The great American rant
Everyone is angry, but where are the fingers really pointing?
Evaluating presidential platforms
Obama and McCain differ on three major points during campaign.
Insurance essential but often unaffordable
Students without health coverage hope for changes in policy.
Brinker: GOP works to detriment of country
While the Republican Party works to bring Obama down in the 2012 ...
Thompson: Conservative rhetoric proves harmful to health ...
'The Lawrencian' rebuffs the GOP's rhetoric.
Compton: The shrinking presidency
President Obama fails in keeping political promises.
Apartment fire causes students to seek security
Editorial: Health care reform and students
Students should consider impact of health care legislation.
Brinker: Lack of experience hurts Herman Cain
Herman Cain uses his lack of political history too often to be ...
Letter to the Editor: Healthcare from the ...
Americans should remember the principles set forth by Founding Fathers in evaluating ...
Bennett: Freeing Libya and the world is ...
Congrats on your "freedom," Libyans, but Obama's war on Libya was unconstitutional ...
Title X funding up in the air
A proposed bill would cut $317 million in reproductive health care and ...
And the candidates are...
Candidates are outlined for each race with platform statements and general information.
Cohen: Healthcare debate represents a problem with ...
Bitter battle between parties stands in the way of government efficiency.
Health care could affect student insurance
The new bill could allow some students to stay on their parent’s ...
Regents may revise student health insurance
A new health insurance plan from the Board of Regents would decrease ...
Bornstein: Identity clashes with opportunity
Workplace discrimination creates problem for some people who wonder: Show who I ...
Secretary to lecture about climate change
Roderick Bremby gained national attention for rejecting the construction of two coal ...
Facing the music
For 13 students sued by the music industry, the risks of illegal ...
Handshy: America should measure progress differently
Success shouldn't be measured in dollars for a sustainable future.
Legalizing Love: the state of same-sex marriage ...
A look at the battle for marriage equality.
Kansas Jayhawk fans hold aloft a reproduction of ...
2 comments
Erin Saupe, a Ph.D. student from St. Cloud, ...
1 comment
0 comments
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
Lecture from Greg Mortenson, co-author of New York ...
0 comments
KUnited presidential candidate Libby Johnson and vice presidential ...
1 comment
Comments
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Robinson gets a bad vibe from a conservative magazine's description of health care? I get a bad vibe from an article that can't even be bothered to use an objective definition in order to start analyzing an issue.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
I'm on the fence about this issue because I can't decide which is worse- trusting my health care, personal health care decisions and personal medical information to a private company whose only motivation is profit, or trusting the same things to a government enterprise whose only motivation is...well that's really hard to figure out. Sure they are saying it's so we can provide better heath care to everyone, and make the system better, but I find that hard to believe given the kinds of people who run our government.
So, really I just want to pay less for the crappy health insurance I get at work. I think that sounds reasonable enough. Maybe it will work out, but part of me worries that nothing will really change for me. Sure the people with some gnarly pre-existing conditions will be able to get coverage, but how much will that cost me?
Another thing that worries me about Obama Care is how it will be designed and who will be designing the system. Will it be easy for doctors and patients to navigate the tangled web of bureaucracy that will be created by this new branch of government? Are doctors, nurses, patients, hospitals, clinics, etc. involved in this process? Or is it a bunch of politicians thinking they know what's best telling medical professionals what they expect?
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Elana Kagan believes it is stupid for the government to force the citizenry to purchase products. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGl... - Her admitting to the stupidity
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Where are all the liberal billionaires and millionaires?
Why don't they start a for profit (or even a non-profit) health care company that does not gouge its customers, have death panels or deny for having preexisting conditions?
If liberals cared so much about the American citizen, and amongst them are millionaires like Rosie O'Donnel (an admitted communist) why don't they pool their resources to make a company that can undercut Blue Cross, Anthem and the like?
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
"Why are all the liberal billionaires and millionaires?"
Suddenly I feel stinkin' rich!
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
I look to history. During World War I two doctors administered intelligience tests to millions of men entering the military. Why did they do this? Research, they had no idea what to do with data they collected. Not less than a decade later people working in government took that data and come to the conclusion that 10 % of the American population should be sterilized in order to improve the American human. The deciding factor was intelligence plus mental and physical retardation, promiscuity, and other intangibles (mostly race based). We know that at least 80,000 Americans were sterilized against their will. The founders of this program took it to Germany to show to Chancellor Hitler for his approval. What is the importance of this today. The new healthcare plan wants to warehouse vast amounts of facts about our well being. Why? They tell us that it is just to be sure and it is nothing sinister. For now, maybe... If I was outside the norm I would be worried that some day a govenrment official would decide that because you are gay, have a congenital defect, a history of cancer in your familiy, hemophilia or anything that will raise the lifetime cost of your healthcare, that the country is better off financially if they refuse your healthcare and allow you to die at an early age rather than bear children. It has already been done in the Soviet Union, China, England, and many other countries.
I prefer to have government watch out for the security of my country and I will take care of my healthcare.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
The United States of America does not have a healthcare problem. We never have. What we have is a health insurance cost issue. Part of that is because of government intrusion, costs of providing health care for illegal aliens/uninsured, and mismangement by some insurance providers. If insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit then they will cease to exist along with the best healthcare system in the world. If you want your healthcare administered by the same folks at the Post Office, the DMV, Social Security, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac then we will all suffer. Besides most likely being unconstitutional, if you think about it then we should be able to provide health coverage to those that don't have it or can't afford it without 2000 + page bills. For a fraction of what Obamacare is costing, we could easily provide a basic healthcare insurance policy through a privately held insurance company that actually knows what it is doing. (without cutting Medicare to the elderly like Obama and the Congress just did)
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
And the supporters of Obama's plan blame Republicans for 'killing' single payer.
They had a supermajority and couldn't pass single payer because the elected Democrat representatives didn't want single payer.
The "liberals" in washington do not support the people they bribe for votes. They support the monied interests which pay them off. In this case, the health insurance industry which will now be able to charge even more for their products because the Federal government will take money from the productive and hand it over.
The liberals in America are dumbfounded because this whole charade has been perpetrated on them. People who stand against an unconstitutional federal mandate to purchase a product knew all along it was a sham.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
"An unconstitutional federal mandate to purchase a product..."
Gee, I can't think of anything that we're federally mandated to purchase... like car insurance... or anything like that.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Ya go find that law .... No wait, I will save you the time. State and federal law are separate for good reason.
There is no federal law mandating auto insurance.
Also, no one is ever forced to purchase a car. Car insurance is not a mandatory requirement of being a citizen.
Civics class isn't on a message board. You were supposed to do your research before you came here.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
You're right. That was a bad example. Social security, on the other hand...
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Social Security is a failed program. Can you hear the sound of "dead program walking"? The money that was in the "lock box" was stolen in 1967 by LBJ and the democratic led Congress to cover the cost of the Vietnam war. But in response to your comment; no, you don't contribute to SS if you don't work. So you're wrong again. It would only be appropriate if you had to buy social security INSURANCE even if you didn't work.
For KU; as you said, insurance is a private business and having free choice can make the decision not ot cover certain individuals. Of course, some of those of individuals can be covered...if they can pay the bill. So maybe KU and others like him can take up a collection to cover everyone that cannot get insurance. Of course KU and the rest will have to be locked in when the number of people increases wanting "free" health care. No matter how much it costs KU and the others will have to cover the cost, period.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
I recommend people watch the youtube video I posted. Elana Kagan and the senator asking her questions illuminate the logic behind the fallacy of this health insurance law.
After the high risk pools opened up, something like 6 people signed up. The poor don't want this and the productive don't want to pay for it.
WATCH THE VIDEO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGl...
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
You know what's crucially missing in this article? The human factor.
I've been resorting to sarcasm for most of these proceedings, which is a mistake I'm apologizing now for. So let me be more serious about this. I'm going into a field that is not going to be providing me health care on the spot. And there are pharmaceutical needs I have to pay for once I get off my parent's health care plan. I could've really, really done with a public option. Now, a compromised bill that barely reformed anything was handed to me instead of something that seriously benefited me. And yet, still, all I hear for is, This health care bill sucks. And then comes the financial statistics.
Never mind the inherent hypocrisy in that, considering most of you probably didn't raise an eyebrow when the GOP passed a Medicare Bill with none of the funding that this health care bill will have. Never mind our government has proven it can run a good health care program through its program for veterans, something even Bill Kristol has mentioned. Never mind that none of you are calling for the government to strip back military funding to help us out of this debt, no matter how pork the secret project. No, what really makes this wonder is the collective view of many on here that human life doesn't even have the value of making health care a right. And that fills me with alarm.
When we're more worried about consistency of ideology over taking care of others, then maybe our ideology wasn't too great to begin with. I'm a poor college student, but I'm willing to give so that some homeless person who may or may not mistreat their body daily can get taken care of without being saddle with unpayable debt. Because at the end of the day, a human life is a lot more important than my pocket book. And that's problem here.
There's complaints about social security even as the complainers benefit generously from the system. Seven of the states that are suing the government over the consitutionality of the Health Care Bill are still willing to take subsidies from said bill. It's all talk, this kavetching about the bill, but it's the kind of talk that coldly reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge. Stop giving a damn about your wallet and start trying to care with your heart.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
We spend approx 4% of GDP on the military.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
Since you will not address the true costs our government incurs (social programs) I think that it will be difficult to hold a true debate about the issues.
Good luck finding a job that provides healthcare. Or finding the 5-7 grand a year to pay your own way. I am lucky, my company pays 75% of my healthcare costs. So I feel your pain that you are looking into what appears to be an abyss.
Maybe you could go into a different field for a few years to save up some money before you do what you really want to do. Then you can pay for costs that lifestyle will entail.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
What I meant by I feel your pain is that I have been uninsured and when I was a kid I was covered under Kansas' program.
But that is a state program, not federal. The distinction is huge, but not widely understood.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
I prefer to think with my brain and my brain (the thinking organ) tells me that government healthcare is a pathway to poor healthcare.
I'm curious to those participating in this discussion; who is paying for their own healthcare and who is being carried by their parents or the state? Might make a big difference when you are being ORDERED to pay for something that you don't want or think that you need.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Luckily, those in charge pack in so much data to one bill that for us little people to debate the issue we cannot find the proper definitions.
Everyone starts to build up definitions in order to facilitate their natural way of comprehending the world.
The level of complexity out of Washington is mindboggling on purpose. One of the dems who wrote the bill admitted to not even reading it or even to have a desire to read it.
It makes the people who take to debating the issue sound stupid, mad, ill-informed and partisan. We all want the same thing; life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some people are just more willing to work to pay their own way.
I think it is biological. Some people are more motivated by their sympathetic nervous systems. The communists and their sympathizers are motivated by their parasympathetic nervous systems.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Sympathetic: action, survival Parasympathetic: defecating, digestion, nervousness
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Yeah, I'm definitely looking for supplementary options when it comes to employment, metacognition. Thank you for the sympathy.
Calvin, my argument was emotional, I'll cop to that, but it's the kind of emotion that keeps people from doing asinine things. I could make an intellectual argument, but those are easier to ignore, in my opinion. I doubt if I gave you a list of facts that you wouldn't fabricate some "nega-fact" to combat it. And the cycle goes on.
Sympathetic and parasympathetic? What? Are we really bringing the concept of "humors" back? Also, that's quite the liberal usage of communist there, metacognition. (See what I did there? :P)
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Think about the nature of the two systems and the impact they have on behavior.
They provide impulse/energy/thought to consciousness. Panic attacks happen when CO2 levels change and the body attempts to regulate it, but people start to panic when the physiology regulates itself.
Some people receive more information regarding different parts of their nervous system. You have the people with small or damaged frontal lobes who have inhibition issues. People with large amygdalas have anger issues.
People with massive parasympathetic nervous system responses are going to minimize their energy output, have higher anxiety levels.
I recommend re-reading the literature regarding the two systems and apply a political slant to their impacts on behavior. Humors? Please. I am talking neurophysiology and its impact on behavior.
xz007, I think that you are on your way to understanding the value of personal responsibility, reasoned logic and being a good citizen who pays his own way. The first step is realizing the difference between emotional and intellectual debate. The next one is choosing reason over emotion...but that is your choice.
The scientific process is the dynamic between facts and "nega-facts." To declare that you will not enjoin yourself to the responsibility to obtain knowledge and refine it when necessary means that you are probably not in the Sciences or Maths. Maybe something in Art? Are you an Art History major?
I prefer the scientific method to being a slave to emotion.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Accusing an opponent of being "hysterical" is so 19th Century, metacognition. But you're right. Hyper-emotionality is completely bereft in the above comments.
Let's see, Calvin compared the health care reform to the Final Solution. You've used the term "communist" several times, and don't tell me it was for logical effect. There's a lot of fear here, fear that was missing eight years ago when the government was doing far more unconstitutional things. Don't pull this "rational" schtick on me, metacognition. You've been using ad hominem after ad hominem. What does my major have anything to do with my cognitive abilities? Are you saying conservatives are the ones who embrace rationality? Does "death panels" ring bell? I'll be off weeping and raging depending what "mood swing" hits me first. Jeesh.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
xz007, please reread my comments and cite the ad hominem attack(s). I made a joke about your major. The parts of the brain used for Art History and the Sciences are different.
I think your feelings are hurt because you recognize you are wrong and have cognitive dissonance because you want to be right, even if the ideology is failed.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
My feelings are hardly hurt; I'm actually quite amused. Apparently, I'm a "slave to emotion." But I feel we're getting off on a tangent here, and worse yet, a tangent subsisting off of generalizations. So let's get back to the article.
Robinson's article subsists off of leading questions and misinformation. Citing "polls" to demonstrate the "overall opinion of America" is always a cheap ploy. Polls almost always have bias, have a narrow range of the questioned, and in the end can easily be used out of context. Trying to draw insinuations about when health care bill comes into effect is also erroneous. "...it should go into effect immediately." Way to not understand government, Robinson. Most policies take years to go into effect, not just health care.
Now let's go into some facts. I made an emotional appeal earlier not because I have no regard for "facts", but to stop all the spin that was going in this forum. That just turned into an opportunity of labelling liberals overly-emotional (which would be the ad hominem I discussed earlier), so here's the deal. In a time where our economy is suffering and many are losing their jobs, deeming insurance options for those who are jobless and benefitless as "spoiling" is particularly, ahem, "cognitively dissonant." Also, many have complained about being "forced" to buy health care. This is a lie that everybody has based their argument on. You're not "forced" to buy health care. In 2014, you're fined if you have no health care, but it's not illegal to not own health care. Considering how much the uninsured cost the health system, I don't think the government requiring recompensation for this is completely out of bounds - it's very financially conservative of them, actually. Also, the fine has many exceptions, specifically for those who can't afford it. Considering most of the uninsured in America would fall in line with these exceptions, the fines will probably fall on those who are more than in a position to afford them; the fines are also capped.
Everybody gets to keep their old insurance if they want to.
Wow. This all sounds like Communist Socialist Marxist China-Russia-Satanland to me!
Will there be more bureaucracy? Of course, but I don't think any of you care about the bureaucracy being implemented for security against immigrants and the like - that's for the "benefit of the whole." And what's more, I didn't know only the financially well-off of us deserved health care. Health care, yes, is about quality, but sacrificing quantity for quality in the terms of human life seems, well, undemocractic. Like a meritocracy, actually. And that's not what America is. If you think only those that are fortunate (not "hard-working" as has been falsely labelled here. Economic mobility isn't an in-born at-will power, believe it or not) enough to be able to afford health care deserve it, well... "I think it will be difficult to hold a true debate about the issues."
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
People will be dropped as the expense to pay the fine will be less than coverage. To those willing to do math, it is apparent that you will NOT get to keep coverage if you WANT to.
There is a choice people make to believe fantasy.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
What math? What are you even talking about? The fines are on those who don't have insurance - how does not being able to pay (and there are provisions for waivers for the fine, mainly detailing, gasp, those who don't have the money to pay for it) LOSE their coverage that they didn't have to begin with? Much less keep those who WANT coverage from GETTING it?
Instead of throwing out cute one-liners about "lack of choice", why don't you show the "math" that proves something that... doesn't even make sense.
Are you trying to say not everybody will get covered? No, they won't. But that doesn't seem to be what you're trying to say.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
I recommend making a chart comprising the possible ways an american is or can be covered, now and after the law. Have a section for Can Pay For and Can't Pay For, and the different products. You will see that the column for cost to individual business owner is much less to stop paying for coverage for employees. Employers will use this chart to determine whether or not to continue to provide coverage for the Americans who pay for this health insurance bill.
I am talking about decision makers, not people who get handouts.
Robinson: Government expansions limits choices
Why support a regressive tax scheme, kujayhawk? :-) I can troll, too.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID