Comments for Galesburgers for Health Care Reform

Comment on America’s Health is America’s Business by Tom Schaller @ 9:41 AM from Peter Schwartzman by Jim Jacobs

Jim Jacobs — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:57:59 +0000

Dave,

I appreciate your comment; I also appreciate the way you treat your work force. Hope you had a good holiday. Thanks.

Comment on America’s Health is America’s Business by Tom Schaller @ 9:41 AM from Peter Schwartzman by Dave Dunn

Dave Dunn — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:30:55 +0000

Nice Post Jim,
If you frame things this way you might get a Repub to listen. Now more than ever since the days of “Norma Ray” business is treating employees like disposable commodities. Right now they get away with it but long term they would be better off to take care of their workers. Thanks.

Comment on Health Care Is Not A Right by Jim Jacobs

Jim Jacobs — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:18:40 +0000

Dave, you put it in such a way that even Ayn Rand could support health care for all. As well as the moral factor, there is the practical aspect of individual self-interest that cries for providing health care for every person.

Comment on Health Care Is Not A Right by Dave Dunn

Dave Dunn — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:19:28 +0000

Dan and Jim, That was some pretty heavy reading for a simple 8th grade graduate, whew!
From a practical (non Moral) perspective it seems that those who are against affordable health care are missing the practical side of things.
1. We currently ARE paying for the uninsured. When their health gets to a state of catastrophe we give them some marginal care through ER rooms. We all pay for that in higher insurance prices, hospital bills etc.
2. Once these uninsured reach catastrophic levels of illness it cost MORE to sustain them than it would have to help them preventatively.
OK that is enough simplistic non sesquipedalian speak for now.

Comment on Health Care Is Not A Right by Jim Jacobs

Jim Jacobs — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:44:35 +0000

Dan, tell me you're not a disciple of Ayn Rand! Brilliant she was, but correct she was not. I have studied objectivism a little, and it proposes that we sacrifice the social good for blatant selfishness. I have seen the interviews of Rand by Mike Wallace and Phil Donahue, and as intriguing as she was, her philosophy is often equally appalling. In one of the interviews with Donahue, she states that very few people in the world are deserving of her love. She likely would have included you and me among the undeserving. However, she has had a profound influence on modern American political and social thought and practice. Among her disciples is Alan Greenspan---and the heads of many corporations. In fact, whether they know it or not, many of these tea party people are serving as foot soldiers for Ayn Rand's philosophy. I really don't think some of them know what they are wishing for, and they better be careful or they might get it.

Let's use the example of a house on fire that I used in a comment on another post. Rand says that each person's greatest objective is to pursue happiness and his or her own self-interest, and that each individual should forsake all others for this goal. So, let's say that your neighbor's house is on fire. Rand would argue that you have no moral obligation to call the fire department, to say nothing of being forced to pay taxes for the fire department. If calling the fire department abridges your right to be happy, then don't call the fire department. However, if the fire from your neighbor's house is going to set your house ablaze, then it is in your self-interest to call them. Ayn Rand's philosophy is becoming the new rallying cry of the far right: Everyone takes care of himself!

I believe it is a right for all American citizens to benefit from a promotion of the general welfare as demanded by the United States Constitution, and that would include quality, affordable health care.

Thanks for posting this piece.

Jim

Comment on Obama’s Malpractice by Jim Jacobs

Jim Jacobs — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:23:00 +0000

Dan, I never said that you considered it a moral obligation to provide fire or police protection to your neighbor; I said "someone else" considered those services a moral obligation.

There was once a time when communities had competing fire companies. Houses literally burned to the ground because two fire companies would show up to a fire, then spend valuable time arguing over which company the fire fighting responsibilities rested with; sometimes no fire company would fight the fire because the owner hadn't paid for fire protection. These tragedies led reformers to call for communities to have one publicly financed fire department---make everyone pay for the benefit of everyone else as well as themselves. A principal motivations behind this reform was the biblical admonition "To love your neighbor as yourself" or the more general Golden Rule---"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, people of good will simply could not live in good conscience knowing that someone's house was turned to ashes because that person could not pay for a fire company's protection.

Dan, having debated and discussed with you on this blog for several weeks, I have a hard time believing that you don't think that it's a moral obligation to pay for fire protection for your neighbor as well as yourself. If I am right about that, then simply transfer that philosophy to health care.

Comment on Obama’s Malpractice by Dave Dunn

Dave Dunn — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:00:33 +0000

Dan , you are correct, many conservatives and Liberals are generous.
Left wingers can be just as extreme.
It seems to me that conservatives see life as a transaction and liberals see life as a relationship. Just my opinion;)

Comment on Obama’s Malpractice by Dan Hiett

Dan Hiett — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:32:49 +0000

Dave, I guess we will have to disagree that a change in terms , which is likely allowable in the contract, is bullying. I 'm not sure how you define right wingers, but conservatives are some of the most personally generous people I know. They just don't think it is the role of government to impose a certain level of generosity.

Comment on Obama’s Malpractice by Dave Dunn

Dave Dunn — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:45:16 +0000

Once again Dan,.. NO this was not a part of my original agreement with my carrier. In fact I got the notification of changeof terms yesterday. My contract is not up until Feb 2010. Once again, Insurance companies ration healthcare every day by bullying doctors and insured alike.
They change the rules in the middle of the game frequently. They may not outright deny coverage but they make it so tricky that they effectively ration.
Regarding ant-trust,.. all you have to do is google mccarren fergusen and read about the back door deals done by politicians to protect the insurance industry from free market rules.
And yes being a good employer has given me a strong market advantage,.. why don’t right wingers get that? Being generous and good to your fellow man is not only the right thing to do,… the universe pays you back in abundance.

Comment on Obama’s Malpractice by Dan Hiett

Dan Hiett — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:27:02 +0000

But Jim, paying for police, fire department, national defense etc., are not something I am willing to pay for because it's a moral obligation. I, and most other fair minded people, pay for these services because we are protected by police, fire, and the armed forces. Your rights end when your rights interfere with mine.