One important point to point. Metropolitan Maximos was the only GOA bishop at the time to sign the Orthodox Amicus Curae bief against Abortion that was presented to the US Supreme Court. Pittsburgh has gone from having the lone GOA to speak out on pro-life issues to having a bishop who will not talk about the issue at all.
]]>Chris –
I would support report remove some of these systems – especial those that are the responsibility of the Church in the first place. There is nothing immoral or anti-Christian about this.
Link to Kaiser Family Foundation implementation time line: http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx
The Obama Administration has forged ahead with full vigor in implementing all scheduled aspects of the plan despite the court challenges. Even if the whole thing is declared unconstitutional it will be difficult to unravel.
My own state’s insurance commissioner, despite being an arden supporter of the plan has publically stated that the actuarial assumptions at the base of the plan, and therefore the purported cost of the plan are unsupportable and will require massive tax increases in the future.
It will only get worse.
The purposed exchanges and the mandate are the two worst parts of the bill.
Insurance fact (as an insurance professional of 30 years)[Of course that makes me a greedy, lying, evil, SOB with no right to comment on anything]. Government mandated coverages ALWAYS increase cost and almost always result in fewer people insured. The government has no clue on how to do insurance. Not to mention providing incentives for increased fraud.
Not to say that the insurance industry hasn’t shot itself in the head more times than I can count making the plan look good to a lot of folks.
Many of the better aspects of the plan were already in place in my state and have been for years. A federal progam was/is simply unecessary.
]]>Rob, the “plan hasn’t even gone into effect yet”? Really? Are you sure about that?
Five Key Obamacare Provisions Implemented in 2010
1. Spending caps on lifetime and annual benefits were prohibited
2. Individual health plans and carriers were prohibited from canceling coverage
3. Plans were required to cover preventative care at no cost
4. Obamacare required coverage of dependent children on parent’s plans until age 27
5. Obamacare mandated protections to children with pre-existing conditionsThe Unintended Consequences Unfolding in 2010
* Major insurance carriers announce their plans to discontinue child-only insurance coverage.
* Medical device manufacturers announced plans to cut jobs due to the new taxes on medical devices
* Surveys indicate that 66% of Baby-Boomer aged physicians will likely leave their practice as a result of Obamacare
* 222 companies and union groups received waivers from the government so they can continue to provide mini-med plans to low wage workers in the face of the new benefits-ration requirement imposed by HHS.
* The 2010 enrollment period saw most employers reduce their plan contributions, raise co-pays and deductibles in anticipation of higher costs.
* AARP, a staunch advocate of Obamacare and major companies such as Boeing, announced several cuts to benefits as result of higher costs and taxes from Obamacare.
* SEIU, another staunch advocate of Obamacare announced that it will drop coverage for children of 30,000 low wage workers.
* Texas announces its intent to drastically cut Medicaid benefits.
* Arizona announced a 30% increase in state health care insurance premiums.
* Major health insurance companies, such a Principal Group, announce plans to discontinue offering health insurance. Met Life announces that it will leave the Long Term Care insurance market.
* Microsoft, for the first time, announced that employees will need to make contributions to its high end health care coverage and a reduction of benefits.
* Employers announce their plans to reduce hiring lower wage workers due to the increased costs of providing coverage under Obamacare.
* Drug companies began notifying children’s hospitals that they no longer qualify for major discounts on drugs used to treat rare medical conditions.
* Major health insurance carries raise individual premiums an average 20%. Following this, HHS threatens insurers who raise premiums with exclusion from participation in the insurance exchanges.
* Insurance companies anticipate insurance premiums for the young and health will increase by 17% to offset the caps on insurance for the elderly and sick.
* HSA-High Deductible Insurance plan providers, such a nHealth, will stop offering these plans due to the stringent benefits-ratio requirements imposed by HHS.
* Employers are now considering dropping their coverage of employees because it would be more cost-effective to pay the $2,000 Obamacare penalty. http://www.affordable-health-insurance.com/articles/obamacare-2010/
And that’s just 2010. I don’t have time to list for you all the 2011 new rules, regulations, and unintended consequences, which include a 25% increase in insurance premiums for my own family.
See here:
Obamacare: The One-Year Checkup
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/03/obamacare-the-one-year-checkup
Yes, clearly I need to check my facts more thoroughly. Got it!
]]>In 2008, the unemployment rate nationally was about 5.8%. In 2011, it’s averaging close to 9.1%. The average cost of health care for a family of four is around $13,375. That’s for a company plan when the employer is covering most of the expense. It’s most likely a bit more if you’re on your own. Now, if one is unemployed, paying $14,000 or so a year for health care is probably not going to be reasonable. I’m surprised the uptick in uncovered persons wasn’t greater.
I’m not saying I support all of Obama’s healthcare initiatives, but let’s remember his plan hasn’t even gone into effect yet (it’s still being challenged in the courts in some states).
You might want to check your facts before trying to make sweeping statements about how policy impacts reality.
]]>Have a look at what’s happened since:
]]>In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, according to Gallup, 14.9 percent of adult residents of the United States lacked health insurance coverage.
That increased to 16.2 percent in 2009, the year that Obama was inaugurated, and to 16.4 percent in 2010, the year that Obama signed his law requiring that all Americans have health insurance.
In the first half of this year [2011], according to data released by Gallup today, the percentage of adults in the United States lacking health insurance ticked up to 16.8 percent.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-uninsured-have-increased-under-ob
(1) That conservatives are advocating for a free-for-all capitalist system with no government controls.
and
(2) That conservatives want to get rid of “child labor laws, social security, unemployment, medicare, disability, etc. etc.”
These are wholesale LIES! This is simply not true.
As George Michalopulos mentioned above, the left and the progressives constantly make up a Straw Man arguments and impute fictional ideas and comments on any conservative messengers or venues that dare bring up any sacred cow policy that progressives blindly and uncritically embrace and promote. Then they point an accusatory finger in our faces and call us evil for wanting to hurt the poor, throw grandma in the street, and starve children.
According to men like Bishop Savas, George Soros, Jim Wallis, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, conservatives are not allowed to discuss, evaluate, or try to improve and reform any progressive/leftist policies at all, regardless of how inefficient, misguided, corrupted, and bankrupt they are. We must categorically accept and embrace them and shut up. Any attempt to diverge even a little bit from the party line and substantively look at ways that things can be corrected are met with a militant rebuke and a categorical condemnation that we are not true Orthodox Christians and don’t care about the poor.
Who exactly are the radicals and the intolerant lemmings in this engagement?
]]>At least that’s the way it seems to me.
]]>“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
~Milton Friedman
George, your comment that there is no 100% government free market is correct. Not possible, not even desirable. If we were to try some form of distributionism, that too would require government control of certain aspects just to keep the businesses local.
As St. Paul pointed out, “Love of money is the root of all evil”. In practice that means that any economic transaction can and often is tainted with all sorts of sinfulness. The state has the resposibility to assure a level playing field as best it can. Otherwise many of the pre-conditions for healthy markets simply will not be met.
One of the assumptions that anon makes, as do many of his persuasion, is that philanthropy can and should be forced. While the state has the authority to restrain and punish evil, I question the ability of the state to create goodness by force. State power ultimately rests in the state’s unique ability to use deadly force. It would be interesting to know if anon also tends to pacifism as part of his corporate morality. I have found that many liberal Christians who wish to use the force of the state to ‘take care of the poor’ also want to restirct the state in the use of military force. OK for the state to use force against its own citizens, not OK to use force against other folks. Very odd stance to take IMO, but not uncommon.
Globalism is a problem and more aggressive and creative use of the anti-trust power of the state ought to be pursued. Without such an approach the political economy (called capitalism and even by some ‘free-markets’ incorrectly) begins to assume a more and more fascist character.
If we could eschew the moralizing and really get to the heart of the matter we might find a greater level of agreement than it first appears.
]]>Good response George. Moreover, if Anon had bothered to read the CASE site instead of reflexively responding with bromides borrowed from the storehouse of Progressive exhortation, he would discover that the social safety net is affirmed.
The CASE group doesn’t tolerate slouches and certainly does not replace sound judgment with the sloppy moralisms that we see in the Progressive ranks. CASE also understands Hayek’s warning that any change has to be handled with discretion and care.
Progressive thought and policy has handed us a social crisis of the first order and it will take many years to undo the damage, but a wholesale overhaul can make the crisis worse than it already is.
]]>