RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

On personal responsibility



Toolbox

Published: August 27, 2009

Providing America with equal coverage in health care was the topic of the editorial in the Rutland Herald on Aug. 8, 2009 titled "All together now." One question the editorial presented is how President Obama is to persuade the majority of Americans who are not facing a health care crisis to support reform of the system for those who are in "dire straits." President Obama's answer is to show the majority of people that they too are in "dire straits" in numerous ways.

This approach attempts to appeal to citizens' self-interest and bring them into such a low mental state of thought to blur the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is better off than many imagine, those whose visions have been potentially corrupted by President Obama's previous reform tactics. These tactics are part of the problem. Lowering America's mentality to bring America into this state of mind of helplessness has reflected in our stock markets and only foresees other future effects.

President Obama wants to create this unrealistic health reform in which all the people are covered all the time. Unfortunately, this is not the case, nor will it ever be. Close to 47 million people in the United States are uncovered by health insurance. However, about 250 million people do have coverage and they have worked hard for it. Why should the majority of the people care about the 47 million who are not? What is in it for them? This is the same question that President Obama is trying to answer. Although his intentions are credible, the approach has many challenges that require careful thought.

As a president, President Obama needs to look out for our nation on a whole and accept the fact that not all the people can be equally covered all the time. Yes, the health care reform is in the interest of each individual, but if people do not comply within the circumstances of reform, a reform cannot exist. This situation needs to be looked upon as an issue of balance and how to balance the needs of 250 million people to those of 47 million. The desirable balance is a point that provides the 47 million people with some form of health care while not sacrificing the quality of care of those currently covered or raising unacceptable cost to implement these laudable goals.

Although the editorial attempts to frame the issue to look after individuals who are vulnerable to disaster, it fails to touch upon the dimension of personal responsibility, a core component of our system. Personal responsibility has created a huge value by harnessing the individual drives of individual spirits. But in an effort to create broad-band coverage, President Obama is removing trust in America's system, making it only possible with more government aid. With that removal, also removed is the individual accountability factor needed to drive our future society.

Surely, this requires robust debate and deserves thoughtful discussions. Just because the Democrats have near absolute control until the next election is not a legitimate reason to rush into this. It is possible to reform our health care system, but we need to do it with the right intentions.

The intentions should include providing America with better quality and pleasure of life, not only for sheer change sake. President Obama's campaign platform included change from Republican and President Bush's policies and is almost cliché now; it is not a race to win any longer. Successful change may not be possible. However, if it is, we need carefully managed plans for success. But then again, change for change's sake has never been proven to be sustainable or always led to good outcomes.

BLAKE BOHLIG

Rutland








READER COMMENTS


Firedog, I know there are many stories like yours. As I have posted before, after the gov added Medicare Part D, many employers and unions simply stopped offering their own drug coverage. My Dad, long retired form his lifetime union job, lost his coverage and he pays a lot more now for his drug coverage and the union pays a lot less. I am convinced that this will happen if we get health. I wonder what will happen to the $ 43 Billion that the UAW got from GM to pay for their own members health coverage? I do not trust the pols Firedog and I will never think otherwise. This is a major change in the gov role and we will have to pay huge increases down the road. If we are going to change the system, it needs a heck of a lot more discussion and time. So, count me as a big skeptic.
-- Posted by bud kafer Jr. on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, 3:36 pm EST

report this comment



Katherine,
By allowing a public option, and actually placing controlls on the insurance companies... that is not reform? forcing the ICs to not do what they did to me and my wife is not reform? are we reading the same bills?? as of right now, we CANNOT get insurance through any means. Leaving my wife and i to use the ER for ALL medical needs, and we cannot afford it. Yeah, great... your system is working perfectly.
Oh, and before making baseless acusations... show me the actual "crimes" you are talking about please.
-- Posted by firedog on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, 4:30 am EST

report this comment



firedog
There are many ways to approach the issues you bring out. To do so would be actual reform. What is being proposed has nothing to do with real reform, but rather an attempt to push through a huge government boondoggle by incompetent and largely criminal (in my opinion) idiot policiticans.
-- Posted by Katherine Silta on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, 8:32 pm EST

report this comment



wow, none of the detractors have anything to say when faced with the true facts of our health insurance system? glad to know it. you only scream, yell names and shout out others while many of your fellow hard working citizens are getting screwed. oh, wait we wouldnt want to stop a corperation from making record profits now would we. bunch of cowards.
-- Posted by firedog on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, 11:59 pm EST

report this comment



i lost my health insurance almost 2 years ago when a co-worker got cancer. the company we work for was suddenly unable to help pay for the insurance after the premiums almost trippled. So we went on the more expensive policy my wife was able to get through her company. Mind you, this took over 2 months without any coverage. Happily, last year she got pregnant. about 2 months after we found out, the complications began. 3 months of near steady doctor visits, tests ect, she lost the baby. We got bills for all the procedures and tests. I went to the insurance company to find out what they were paying for, and they told me they had cancelled our policy. Apparently, unbeknownst to us, my wife has an abnomality with her uteris that makes it difficult for her to carry full term. They called this a "pre-existing condition" and therefore voided our policy. we get to pay all the bills! whoopee... our health care system is working wonderfully! My wife and i both work 2 jobs. call me vindictive, but all you people bitching that those without coverage are just lazy, dont deserve coverage ect... wait till you actually need your insurance. i hope they drop you and you get to go bankrupt too.
-- Posted by firedog on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, 12:53 am EST

report this comment



That's not Your...ME...that should be you're...
-- Posted by Juliet Chien on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, 11:45 pm EST

report this comment



Whats the matter JC? No real answers or replies, so pick on the grammar (or lack of?)
Your no better than Notta...

Are you Bi-polar? Do you need your meds again? One minute your writing like an educated adult, next minute like a 12 year old.

Your insults add nothing to a conversation.
If you can't say somethin' nice, don't say nuthin' at all...
-- Posted by Mav Erick on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, 8:22 pm EST

report this comment



Nooze, That Guy, ayup all round! Makes it clear that something is missing in our method of teaching english compostion. It's more than just stringing words together and filling the page! Sad joke.
-- Posted by Juliet Chien on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, 5:16 pm EST

report this comment



That was one beautiful piece of writing, That Guy!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 12:51 pm EST

report this comment



Man, there oughta be an IQ test for writers of "letters to the editor". Score below 80, you don't get in. This screed would have been left on the cutting room floor.

Allow me to summarize this brilliant piece of writing:

1. Obama wants those who have some form of health care coverage to worry about those who don't.

2. In doing so, Obama is trying to make people stupid -- a "low mental state".

3. Making people stupid is why the stock market has underperformed.

4. Obama wants everyone covered by healthcare insurance.

5. It'll never happen, so why bother?

6. And why should we care about those people, anyway?

7. Majority rules, baby. Majority rules.

8. Except, I guess, we should give those 47 million people something.

9. As long as it doesn't change a thing for me. Or -- uh -- I mean the other 250 million people.

10. So anyway... those 47 million don't have insurance because they haven't been "responsible" enough to earn it.

11. Give 'em insurance, and they'll all become super-irresponsible. Plus, they'll live longer, which just means you'll have a bunch of irresponsible people walking around getting good healthcare for an even longer period of time, which would just be a terrible horrible thing.

12. We need to make people accountable by letting them get sick and die. Now THERE'S some real accountability for you.

13. So, uh, let's all take a breath and put this on the back burner until the Democrats don't control Congress any more, at which point we can ignore it completely.

14. Besides, we didn't elect Obama to actually change anything -- only to talk about change. I'm sure all those people who voted for him were just kidding, right? I certainly didn't vote for him, but I'm positive that's the case. I think. Truth be told, I don't even remember what I was writing about. What was it again? Oh, yeah -- healthcare. Anyway, I'm agin' it.
-- Posted by That Guy on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 11:48 am EST

report this comment



Seems to me that maybe there needs to be some solidfying of the facts....there has to be some objective facts about who is uninsured and the care they need/receive...numbers get thrown around and everyone knows they are severely slanted (by both sides)...what are the exact true numbers?

I believe the point of this article is well made...and the comments illustrate...we dont even know who or how many this reform is intended to save and from what are they being saved and what is supposed to be saving them....not a great way to make a decision...what do they calll it..."informed" decision...theres a lot of opionions just not a lot of straight facts...

also...why is everyone's argument so skewed with no care for facts? i have seen a few articles about local clinics that service non-insureds...claims that there are people with no possibility for healthcare is therefore BS...given this...and medicaid/care...dont we already have national healthcare?

lets not put the facts to the side for the sake of a good ideological fight...its all bs without the facts...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 9:40 am EST

report this comment



I will let the Government run my Health Care when they show me that they are not corrupt. When they show me that they can properly handle the hard earned money I already give them. Lets let them fix the messes they already have taken over before we allow them to make our Health Care an even bigger mess then it currently is. Lets see Government slow down a little and do the job right instead of racing to ***** up one program after another. Here's an example of our Government working for the people, www.thedenverchannel.com/money/20568541/detail.html?taf=den&taf=den if after reading this you want them to control your HealthCare then so be it. Be careful what you ask for.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 8:27 am EST

report this comment



Now, I read that the dems want to take away the "Advantage" option is Medicare. This was designed as an "option" for Medicare folks to buy HMO like coverage in the private market. It would be less expensive for folks and the gov, but was private. Again the dems do not like options particularly if they are private choices. I don't see how anyone can argue that the gov will endorse private competition. Maybe to silence critics today, but with the understanding that " they" will modify the rules later. Please do not support gov take over of our health. There has to be another way.
-- Posted by Handy Andy on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 5:48 am EST

report this comment



Comfy
You need to look up the details of the alleged 47 million uninusred and break it down factually. You are buying the political hype.
From the census bureau to the CBO,etc you can read the real figures.
Of the 47 million at least 10 million are non citizens. Another at least 11 million are people who have the financial means (2.5 x poverty) to buy a plan but are voluntarily not doing so either privately or via their employers.
A large proportion of the rest fall into the figures because they are TEMPORARILY not getting insurance but willl likely in a few months. READ about it and you will learn the facts.
There are ways to improve this system without dismantling it.
Read H3200. Talk to people who understand the ramifications of installing a public option under the conditions stated in the bill. There is alot more at stake and if implimented as written, it will force people into a public system that will eventually implode like every other govt run system is currently doing worldwide...inclduing Medicare which is now about to be bankrupt.
Read about what is happening right now in Canada,Germany,Britain and France. There systems are not sustainable and are in big trouble.
Physicians are leaving Canada in droves. I work with several of them on a daily basis.
-- Posted by Katherine Silta on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 5:34 am EST

report this comment



We should care about the 47 million uninsured because they are human beings and so (presumably) are we. We should care because 47 million people with unprotected health live among us and can and do spread disease. Health care reform was first proposed in 1918 and people have been working and fighting for it ever since. If this is rushing then I'd hate to see what happens when we take our time or drop the ball.
So far, socialized medicine has not been proposed so all this talk about it is just a nonsensical distraction. What has been proposed is a public health care option. (Please look up option in the dictionary...it's under "O")
Where is this complaint that a public health care option may not be the best possible care coming from? Oh thats right, the same people who don't want those 47 million to have ANY access to care! This is truly a contortion of logic.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, 3:00 am EST

report this comment



I happen to have health care, and it's not gov't sponsored, and I'm afraid I'm not experiencing a whole lot of this independence and freedom of choice you're citing, Jack. Oh, sure, I've got the freedom to choose my employer sponsored health care (which is really just an exercise in how little the employer can provide while still providing something) or nothing at all, and I've got the independence to quit the job altogether, so I guess this is an absolutely terrific system after all!
-- Posted by Peacefully Evyl on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 8:56 pm EST

report this comment



Well, I see another way to save $ with this plan would be to have the IRS folks that must report everyones income to the "medical authorities" could double up and make those decisions on who is " worthy" of spending $ on in their later life. Kinda like multi-tasking, a new concept for gov.
-- Posted by Handy Andy on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 5:13 pm EST

report this comment



Hey nooze, get a grip on it. Of the 47 Million, 1/3 of them are illegal aliens. We pay for that. The others have made choices. Those choices may be that they rather have a $30K car and pay $400 a month versus paying for health insurance. Many of the others are young and healthy and don't want to pay for something they don't believe they need. Others are in bad situations. To think that some how we are evil because we don't want the government controlling our insurance coverage reeks of liberal extremism versus independence, freedom of choice and the belief that I will take care of my own, thank you very much.
-- Posted by Jack Bauer on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 1:18 pm EST

report this comment



Health care is a disaster. 47 million people don't have coverage. Millions more are underinsured. Millions of Americans are one illness away from being destitute. How can this be in the richest country in the world. We pay twice as much as any other country for health care and our health outcomes are worse. It's truly embarrassing for "the greatest country in the world" to treat its citizens in this way. Nobody owes us anything? So, the 47 million people without health insurance should just be turned away? Or will we continue to cover them when they go the emergency room? They go to the emergency room because they can't afford to go for preventative care. The ER costs are astronomical. It's a completely backward way of providing health care. Someday you'll all have your own horror story to tell. Count on it.
-- Posted by noozereeder on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 10:36 am EST

report this comment



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html

Even if you have insurance, you'd better hope that (1) you don't get seriously sick and (2) that your small business doesn't have someone working there who gets seriously sick.
..
-- Posted by William Jefferys on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 10:19 am EST

report this comment



This hole debate seems to miss the point. This is a power grab by the far far left. Its as simple as that.
-- Posted by Frank Westcott on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 9:34 am EST

report this comment



noozereader: Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything. Too many people who think like you want the government to be their limitless credit card.

"Personal responsibility" may mean don't get sick; isn't that the whole point behind the Obama "savings" due to access to preventative health care? It also means be aware of the cost of the medical care you ask for, and be prepared to pay for it. People who consume the services need to be responsible for paying for what they consume. Insurance should only cover the truly big catastrophic high-risk, low probability things, not every office visit. How can you "insure" against something guaranteed to happen? It's an oxymoron.

The health care system has only been broken in the minds of freeloaders and the government hacks who try to buy thier votes by implementing socialized medicine. If the government doesn't like the price of health care, maybe they shouldn't have stuck their noses in to it in the first place.
-- Posted by Freehold-06 on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 9:05 am EST

report this comment



Blake, I am looking forward to "Teddycare", just like his plan. No concerns at age 77 of traveling the country looking for Dr.s and practices of the best and at no cost to me. The gov will pay all>
-- Posted by Handy Andy on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 8:26 am EST

report this comment



Blake, this is a great letter that gets to heart of the grassroot rejection of government controlled health insurance plan. Health care is not a disaster as noozereeder states. The USA has the best Health Care in the world. It is a credit to the doctors, nurses and technicians that work in this field. What is a disaster is the cost of that health care. Whereas the government wants to control how much money you get to keep on pay day they can't control the cost of paying for the uninsured.
Obama can't ask the middle class to sacrifice anymore or he will lose the next election and he knows it. With 250 million citizens happy with their insurance why should they change? Some will say many of those are on Medicare, a government controlled insurance anyways. but Medicare isn't perfect. Just ask the Seniors that you know that are on it and they will tell you horror stories too. It is not the best available and it will not get better with more people on the plan or even more money from the taxpayers. It is what it is.
Do you recall back in the day when you could buy cheap insurance for your child while they were in school? It was an form of insurance that all schools could participate in and did not eliminate you if you had a pre-existing condition. I wonder why that type of insurance is no longer available.
-- Posted by Jack Bauer on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 8:19 am EST

report this comment



"Close to 47 million people in the United States are uncovered by health insurance. However, about 250 million people do have coverage and they have worked hard for it. Why should the majority of the people care about the 47 million who are not? What is in it for them?"
You should care about your uninsured neighbors getting covered because those who are not are causing your insurance rates to increase every year, and they're going to debt, which is putting strains on the credit market, banks, the housing market... unpaid ER bills are increasing the costs of medical procedures... yes people need to be responsible for themselves and lead healthier lives, but to assume uninsured people aren't covered because they're not working hard enough is narrow sighted and pompous. Some of those 47 million lost their jobs due to the recession, and with that their coverage. Some work harder each day to save money and get frustrated because the rising hosts of health care keep it out of reach for them.
-- Posted by concerned citizen on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 7:47 am EST

report this comment



Personal responsibility = don't get sick.....

Rush into this? Health care has been a disaster for decades and it's long past time to do something about it.

Trust in our system? The system is completely broken.

This letter is joke.
-- Posted by noozereeder on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 6:47 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout