The Democratic Party's proposal for health care changes has been losing steam, and one by one politicians have been realizing that a vote for Obamacare spells no re-election for them in 2010, or whenever their next re-election bid is. Recognizing the writing on the wall, Nancy Pelosi knew they had to work fast before they lost any more votes, and the people had the chance to convince more legislators to move away from government-controlled health care. One of the methods of slowing the damage was for Pelosi and gang to eliminate the words upsetting people, and replace them with more acceptable verbiage - even though the goals of the bill changed very little. By changing the language into an even more ambiguous piece of legislative trash that promotes the end of the private health care industry as we know it, the nearly 2,000 page monstrosity, of which nobody in Congress has fully read, went to vote on Saturday. Government intervention into the health insurance world won yesterday by a narrow 220-215 vote, clearing the way for the Senate to begin what will prove to be a long and vicious debate on the issue that has become more important to Obama than even the lives of our troops in Afghanistan.
Public opinion is hostile towards the idea of federal government intrusion into the best health care system in the world. Amazingly, the little bubble the leftist politicians live in says otherwise to Pelosi's zombies, and inside the beltway of Washington DC the bill looks unstoppable to the small-brained leftist politicians. The fact that the American People are rejecting the dangerous step into a socialist society did not convince them to put a stop to the bill, but it will be defeated in the Senate. Enough not-so-Marxist Democrats in the United States Senate will shy away from joining their hard left whacko compadres, and the move towards choice-killing government-controlled health insurance will die on the Senate floor. Or at least such legislation will be killed until the leftists can come up with more language for a piece of legislation that makes less sense, but sounds like it might not be a pledge to Marxism as this bill does.
A couple Saturdays ago, on Halloween, a liberal Canadian called into my Political Pistachio Radio Revolution radio program during the second hour to try to explain to me why government intrusion into a private system is a good idea. He threw around the usual propaganda, beginning with the argument that Canada spends less on health care, per capita, than does the United States. Therefore, that must mean the Canadian government-controlled system must be better. I don't know the details on why we spend more, but I am willing to bet that malpractice suits (and the behavior by the medical industry the fear of malpractice suits bring), and the behavior of Americans in their daily lives, are a large part as to why our health care costs more. Think about it, we are the wealthiest nation in the world. Our poverty-stricken citizens live better than nearly 90% of the rest of the world. We eat a lot of fast-food, participate in more activities that carry some kind of risk, and more Americans smoke than in other countries. So could it be that our health care costs are higher per capita partly because we live so well, and not because our health care system is lousy?
The caller then argued that 47 million people in the United States are without health care. When I questioned the number, he argued it must be true because all of the news outlets say so. They get their numbers from the Democrat controlled government, so of course those are the numbers they are going to report. But, the number is in error. "47 million" without health care is a lie. The Democrats are lying to you every time they say that all these people are without health care, but they continue on with the number because they realize it strikes a chord with the American People.
First of all, 47 million people would be roughly 1 out of 6 Americans, and that is obviously false. Secondly, included in that number is a large amount of people that are either in this country illegally, are between employers and will have health insurance soon through a new employer, or choose not to buy health insurance for personal reasons. As for the people that are indeed without health insurance, and desire to have coverage, they are not without health care - almost every state has a state-run system, usually used by people as temporary care. If I was without health insurance, here in California, I could go down to the county hospital and receive care using the Medi-Cal program. Health care is available to the 47 million the Democrats claim are without health care, through the states. So, the Democrats are not really trying to get people health care that don't have care, but are trying to get the federal government into the mess of things, which will ultimately kill the private care system, and the state programs, leaving only the federal government in control of all health issues. And they are willing to destroy a private system that most Americans are happy with to do so, leaving Americans without choice.
"If you were president right now, then, what would you do to fix the health care system that is obviously broken?" asked the caller.
Tort Reform is one thing I would encourage if I were president, but I think it is unconstitutional for the Republicans to try to push for Tort Reform from a federal angle. This is something the states must pursue. Tort Reform is reforming the legal system, of which the federal government has no authority. But, if states were to institute Tort Reform, it would eliminate, or at least control, frivolous malpractice suits. The real savings, however, from Tort Reform, would not just be a drop in costs regarding the law suits, but the changes in the behavior of the medical community as a result of such. Currently, malpractice insurance is sky-high because of the problem of frivolous suits. The eventual drop in those rates would transfer into a drop in health care costs as well. Other benefits would be that doctors, now not so fearful of frivolous suits, would not order unnecessary procedures to show they covered all bases, nor would they depend so heavily on pharmaceuticals. Ultimately, health care costs would drop dramatically if Tort Reform was instituted among the states. Tort Reform should also limit punitive damage cases that award millions, while reducing the size of punitive awards.
As president I would also institute a "get government out of health care plan" that would draw back on many rules and regulations that do not necessarily make the system better, but actually hurt health care in America. I would allow companies to sell across state lines, and I would allow insurance to create products that include "catastrophic care only." Currently, such products are not allowed because of government regulations.
Our health care system is like a car engine, and the engine has a great number of things wrong with it. The person who wishes to keep his costs down, and get his hands dirty, is going to stick his hands into that engine and fix what is wrong with it.
The engine of health care is not running smoothly. It needs an oil change, a new battery, a tune up, and the belt on the alternator needs to be pulled tighter. Knowing this, it doesn't seem wise to then say, "Okay, I guess we have to replace the whole engine, and while we are at it, let's put an engine in that is not made for this make and model, and has been proven to fail." Instead, we need to fix the individual problems, and allow capitalism to finish the job of straightening out our problem through healthy free market principles. Increasing private industry competition (which is not achieved by inserting a government competitor) will increase quality and decrease cost.
Liberals argue Capitalism had its chance - but that is not true - because the government has been fiddling with the system through outrageous government controls for decades. A true free market option has yet to be allowed by government.
The government has been the primary problem regarding our deteriorating health insurance system, and the government thinks it can now fix the health care mess by injecting more government. If government's misuse of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution was lifted, and policies could be sold across state lines, the competition alone will drive down prices. If government regulation, of which Teddy Kennedy was behind a lot of, that determines how policies are built was pulled back, and insurance companies were allowed to build policies the people want to buy, the prices would also drop.
The HMO style insurance, which was pushed by the Democrats, is a large part of the problem. I don't charge my auto insurance to take my car in for an oil change, a brake job, or an alignment, so why do we use insurance for every routine doctor's visit? If insurance companies were allowed to create catastrophic policies, meaning that people would be paying out of their pocket for most of their health care, it would drive prices down as doctors began to compete for patients. The price of coverage would drop as well because the insurance companies would not be paying for every sniffle, cough, and sneeze. The problem is, thanks to Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats of 50 years ago (and since), we expect our insurance to pay for us to have our temperature taken. That's crazy. My routine visits should be paid by me. I should have the ability to buy catastrophic insurance if I so desire. But the federal government has so many restrictions on the industry that those kinds of products are not readily available.
Now, after not allowing the health insurance industry to create products for the consumer that is best for the consumer, they wish to insert themselves directly into the health care circus. But the Congress, in the bill that just narrowly squeezed by in the House vote, is making the politicians exempt from having to use Obamacare. If a government option is so wonderful, why won't the elitist politicians use it?
Ultimately, after all of the arguments from his side, and myself, the caller on my radio program brought up how in his province, Manitoba, automobile insurance is through a government program. He was bringing it up to illustrate how well the government can run something. He said that his public auto insurance is second to none. It is one of the most affordable insurance plans in the country with fantastic coverage, quick claims service, and it has a variable rate that rewards drivers that live in lower-risk areas (using risk tables which are also used in the private industry).
I asked the caller, "What about the private companies? Aren't they able to compete with this automobile public option? Are there any private companies?"
He responded, "For auto insurance? No."
"Why not?"
"Because it's public."
I then asked, "So are private insurance companies not allowed?"
"Not for auto insurance, not in this province."
The rope was in place, so I asked, "Doesn't that limit you? Even though this public insurance is so good, and I am glad it is a wonderful thing, but doesn't that limit you? What if you wanted different coverage, of just simply desired something different? I mean, you are limited to only what the government can offer. What if the government decided they wanted to change it on you? There's nothing you can do about it."
The Canadian liberal responded, "Like I said, it is second to none."
I guess it's easy to be "second to none" when there is no competition because you killed it all with a governmental option.
I continued, "That's not my point. I am glad it is second to none. That's wonderful, I am glad it works out very well for you. But the opportunity is there for the government to change things on you, and there is nothing you could do about it. Your choice is limited. If you suddenly didn't like what they were doing you couldn't say, 'okay, fine, they suck now, I am going to go over to this company.' You can't, because there is no other company. See, that's my point. I am glad it is wonderful, and I am not putting down that you have a wonderful option, that's great - but what if it stops being great? You don't have a choice. Liberty is all about choice. That is one of my problems with, for example, federally funded health insurance. Eventually it will kill the private industry, and my choice will be limited to one location. Choice equals freedom, and freedom equals liberty. So you are in a situation. . . that even if it is second to none, your government if they wanted to - let's say they ran into problems with paying, there is a lot of accidents, whatever, and they stop covering a certain thing, and they raise how much you are paying, and all that, and suddenly it's like 'Wow, this is starting to really suck,' you've got nowhere to go because that's it, that's your choice. That's it! That's my complaint about government funded systems like that."
For those that believe Obama when he says, "If you like your coverage, you can keep it," grow up and face reality. Government is not providing competition with this plan that just passed the House of Representatives. The government has no profit margin, sets the rules, and can print money if it gets into trouble. How is that competition? The ultimate result, be it next year, ten years from now, or two dozen years from now, is the eventual death of private health insurance, and for the public option to be the only option. Period. And that eliminates your choice, your freedom to choose the product you wish to use. The solution to our health insurance problem is not more government. The solution is less government in the system. The federal government needs to back off and allow companies to sell across state lines, and for companies to be able to create products the consumers need - not products the government requires them to have.
Believe me when I say that if this bill passes the Senate, it will destroy choice. The government has already unconstitutionally (and even without legislative authority) taken over much of the banking industry, automobile industry, credit industry, and mortgage industry. The federal government has control of roughly 34% of the private sector, and will be in control of nearly half of the private sector should this bill pass, and the private health insurance industry will die as a result.
Ask yourself: Do you believe that is what the Founding Father's intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution? Do you believe they desired the federal government to grow astronomically, control our lives, and tax us heavily? Do you believe they intended for America to eventually regress into a socialist nation controlled by a huge, centralized federal government?
The answer to each of those three questions is a resounding, "NO!"
Choice is liberty, and government paid health insurance is a liberty killer, and a move towards socialism - and socialism is a nation killer. America is exceptional because of its 233 year refusal to be like Europe. If we kill the American dream with the policies of today's hard left Democrat, we are doing more than just changing the foundation of the American Form of Government - we will kill this nation once and for all.
The traitors of the left would have you believe they are doing this to strengthen America, but in reality they are doing this to change America. They have a problem with our 233 year prosperity, and our standing as the greatest nation on Earth. For some reason they wish to destroy that - and that is anti-American. Stand with the real Americans, and do all you can to stop the anti-American, treasonous government-run health care that these hard left liberals are pushing.
We are our last hope. We are the resistance. We are America.
United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment