Tag Archives: Public Option

Government Insurance. You Can Opt Out Of It, But You Will Still Pay For It.

Bookmark and Share    Democrats are gleeful over a recent decision pushed for by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid U4HCito include a “public option” in their proposed government run health management and insurance reform bill. Believing that they are geniuses, Senators like Reid, Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer think they have reached a Solomon-like compromise that will please everyone and enable every man, woman and child across America to support their government run health management and insurance business plan.

The plan is to allow states the opportunity to opt out of the highly controversial “public option” which creates a government run insurance industry.

Wow, imagine that, Democrats seemingly offering choices for states rather than ride roughshod over state rights and mandate them to participate in unconstitutional federal programs. But is it really a choice?

Absolutely not!

Just to be clear, taxes will pay for governmet insurance.  As such, even though the “opt opt clause might sound innocent, what happens in states that do opt out of government run insurance? Do the citizens of those states that do not participate in the program have their federal taxes lowered? Since they will not be part of the government insurance program, will their taxes not be used for the program?  The answer is no? So in other words, what Democrat Senators are saying is, you don’t have to be in the program but you will still pay into it. That’s like going window shopping and having the salesperson come out and tell you that you don’t have to buy the clothing that you’re looking at, but you still have to pay for it. Is that sane? Does it make any sense? It does to Democrats who are anything but democratic.

The same situation applies to the set of statements that Democrats make when they told us that no one citizen will be forced to give up their insurance and be forced to take government run insurance. Yeah, they may not have been forced to take the government program. May, not have. But they will be forced to pay into it regardless of whether they participate in it or not.

Thankfully Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican to vote the Baucus healthcare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee, has stated that by including the public option, even with an opt out clause for states, it will preclude her from supporting it when it comes before the full senate for a full vote. According to Snowe, a woman who is far from conservative and barely a Republican, she feels that the insurance funded by the mandatory flow of tax dollars will give government run insurance an “inordinate advantage” over private insurers and quite possibly put them all out of business. Such a turn of events will leave government the sole source of financial resources for healthcare. This is the same government that can operate the U.S. Postal Service without losing money every year that it operates. This is the same federal government that puts Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in charge of banks, tax cheats in charge of the U.S. Treasury and criminal tax evaders like Charlie Rangel in charge of writing the tax code.

red-tapeDo you really want them deciding how and if your insurance should pay for a particular healthcare procedure that you need but they feel you could wait for ? Do you really think that they can be trusted with the money that is suppose to be used to finance your health care needs?

On this, Olympia Snowe is right.

And so is independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who caucuses with Democrats and is one of the sixty senators they were counting on to pass their nationalized healthcare bill. Lieberman states that he does not believe that this is the time for the federal government to get involved in new business ventures.

Seeing as how in just nine months, President Obama has tripled our national debt and shrunk the growth of the private sector and the private sector jobs that they create, I do not believe that President Obama and his liberal board of directors in Congress should be trusted to run a new business and certainly not to make decisions regarding our health care benefits. No bank would lend money to a crew like Obama, Pelosi and Reid. They are big spenders with absolutely no collateral who would not exactly qualify for a loan to finance a start up business and the American people don‘t either.

Do you really want higher taxes that finance a government insurance program that has a patronage filled bureaucracy determining what treatment the federal health insurance program will cover and not cover for you? Do you really want a politician like former Kansas Governor and now secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius to determine that it is too early for you to have that mammogram that you want? Do you really bureaucrats like her to decide that if you do get it, your government health insurance won’t cover it?

Thankfully some of the supporters that Senator Reid was counting on to insure smooth passage of his health reform measures are pulling away from him. Reid hoped that people like Lieberman and Snowe would help avoid a filibuster of the liberal proposal to create nationalized healthcare and government run health care and insurance. Now, with the pretend opt out clause for government insurance being placed in a final version of the bill, Senators like Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman are making it clear that they might assist Republicans in successfully filibustering the Democrat health scam to death.

healthcare88If you really want to make changes that hold down the costs of healthcare and health insurance and allow more people to obtain and keep insurance, than do so. Create more competition by allowing people to take advantage of out of state insurers. Strengthen portability so that people can continue to carry the same insurer from job to job and state to state. And also get a handle on the overly litigious society which we live in by adopting tort reforms. Lawsuits for outrageously high damage claims create a climate that forces physicians to not participate in the geographical areas of the country that do not have caps on damages. Regions without such caps find themselves lacking doctors who are willing to care for high-risk patients or to conduct high-risk procedures. As for the few who are willing to take on such responsibilities, their liability insurance is so expensive that it must be passed on to all their patient regardless of their risk level or the procedures they require. In doing so, the expense becomes so great that is often to much to afford.

Unless Congress is willing to first tackle the obvious need for tort reform, portability and interstate insurers, all else that they are currently doing is meaningless. In fact it is more than meaningless, it is reckless and dangerous.

A nation that can’t run a postal service without losing money should not be running an insurance a bureaucratic insurance company. Next thing you know, President Obama will be selling us used cars, Charlie Rangel will be selling us tax shelters and Chris Dodd will be hawking high interest home mortgages. If we don’t trust politicians when it comes to politics, why on earth would we trust them to sell us insurance?

Wake up America! This is the government that had people wait on lines, in vain, for flu shots that never materialized, prompting Health and Human Services Secretary Sibelius to beg people to “come back” another day.

Sick people should not be dispensing health care and believe me, these Democrats are sick people.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

A New Approach To The Healthcare Dilemma & A Warning From Ronald Reagan About Socialized Medicine

 
 
Bookmark and Share
On April 4th , of 1960, Time Magazine ran a story that began as follows:

u4PrezHealthCareBlog“Shaping up as one of 1960’s most incendiary political issues is the problem of providing adequate medical care for those who need it most and can afford it least: the 15 million U.S. citizens 65 and over. A variety of bills calling for federal medical subsidies to the aged is before both the Senate and House. By far the most popular and controversial of all has been introduced by Rhode Island’s Democratic Representative Aime Forand, 64. Last week the Forand bill was drawing more mail than any other bill of any kind before Congress.”

Fast forward almost 50 years, boost the numbers and change the names and the same opening paragraph can be written of the new universal healthcare legislation that was recently hammered out by the most liberal legislative leaders Congress has ever housed.

Under the orders of the President of the United States, Congress must hurry up and pass a universal healthcare package. Yet this is not an issue easily solved.

After winning reelection in 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress a national health-care program of his own.

It failed.

On November 19th of 1945 President Harry Truman declared that he would protect Americans from the “economic fears” of illness and gave Congress a national healthcare bill of his own that increased federal aid for healthcare, health education and research for the medical profession; and it was to make health insurance and disability insurance compulsory.

Truman’s initiative had a mixed reception in the Democrat controlled Congress of the time and on the Republican side people like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio declared that Truman‘s proposal was “the most socialistic measure” that “this Congress has ever had before it”.

Truman’s national healthcare initiative failed.

Sixty four years later and here we are again but now what Truman called national healthcare is called universal healthcare and President Obama wants Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to rush a meaningful plan together before Congress takes their traditional summer recess.

This debate has gone on for over seven decades but Obama, Pelosi and Reid are going to hammer out the elusive solution together in the first seven months of the new President’s administration.

Why is he rushing?

Could it be that President Obama wants to ram some half-assed legislation through immediately because he fears that the newness of his tenure in office which affords him the good will and popularity may not be there a year and a half from now when mid-term elections take place and the effects of his leadership set in?

Is such a partisan rush responsible or rational? Is it sensible?

I am not suggesting that important issues get sat upon while Americans see health costs rise and feel increasingly insecure about the future of their current healthcare coverage. What I am suggesting is a careful, thoughtful, comprehensive and different approach be taken. I am offering an approach different from those which other Democrats in President Obama’s position have taken and failed at.

Perhaps a bipartisan approach can be attempted. And maybe, just maybe President Obama could try and initiate a plan that does not involve a government takeover and government run solution that overrules the founding principles of our democracy. We have had enough of that from him already.

A start would be understanding that one solution for all is not appropriate and that the federal government could and should allow states the regulatory and legislative flexibility that would enable and inspire them into action.

The Democrat leadership in Congress, under the direction of President Obama, needs to understand that the many regions and populations in America are so varied that their differing conditions warrant different approaches to the different needs of our divergent society. Another words, a federalist approach to healthcare will not work. Democrats may seek to insure healthcare for all but a one for all national policy will not suit the needs of all.

That is just one reason why the differing states should have the flexibility to formulate different systems, systems that best suit the needs of each state’s population.

Yet while there should not be another failed national attempt to make one policy fit all, one direct line does exist which can allow, as Dr. Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings institute puts it, federalism to “spur bipartisan action on the uninsured“.

Bipartisanship is the key to any enduring solution to reduce the number of American citizens lacking healthcare. Bipartisanship is the one component that every Democrat proposed, national healthcare, initiative from Roosevelt in 1938 to Hillary Clinton in 1994 lacked. Without bipartisanship only one approach is looked at and the pool of ideas is limited to one school of thought.

That limited scope of thinking will inevitably leave many stones unturned and lead to many failures as such a single minded policy is imposed on all the states’ people.

Arranging allowances and guidelines for state experimentation is the first area where bipartisanship can allow for a federalist approach on healthcare.

With federal legislative guidelines and financial support, state experimentation would produce a myriad of various solutions and in time the best solutions for each state will evolve into better and stronger healthcare availability options fore all states.

Dr. Stuart Butler, a devoted and learned expert on the issue contends that “ Congress could enact a policy toolbox of federal initiatives that states could include and federal funding to the states would be linked to success in reaching the goals.”

Another issue that collectively, all the parties that make up Congress can work together on when it comes to national action on healthcare, is portability.

Millions of Americans cannot keep their coverage when they change jobs and often they can not continue with the same coverage they have throughout their lives as changes in their lives occur. Federal action that would allow for the portability of health insurance would solve this problem and help to stabilize insurance markets, reduce costs and ultimately reduce the fluctuating number of uninsured in America.

Comprehensive immigration reform measures that secure our borders are yet another bipartisan effort that could inspire a federalist approach that will significantly help to lower healthcare costs.

If Democrats can understand that we are a sovereign nation with borders that mean something and realize that Republicans are not an anti-immigration party, maybe cooler heads could prevail and a secure border can be achieved.

As an “Open Arms-Secure Borders” Republican, I know that most in the G.O.P. understand the national and moral value of immigration and that we welcome immigrants. The difference is that unlike liberals we do not condone and promote illegal immigration. We do not wish to promulgate an underground society and culture of illegal immigrants who hide from the light of day and the law. If the left could grasp these facts perhaps they could embark on a bipartisan effort to secure our borders.

With secure borders the flow of the millions of illegal immigrants who overtax our already overburdened emergency healthcare services will be sharply reduced. Currently millions of undocumented, untraceable illegal immigrants find themselves in need of emergency health care and in the end, the costs for their medical attention is tacked on to the bill of every medical procedure that every American citizen undergoes.

These are but a few options to the one size fits all, socialist approach to healthcare that Democrats in the past and present have tried and are trying to inflict upon society.

Each time Democrats have attempted to take the lead on the issue of healthcare, they have refused to work along bipartisan lines. Roosevelt presented his own partisan plan, and so did other Democrats like Aime Forand and Hillary Clinton. History shows that these same partisan, socialist approaches have always failed. Now President Obama has asked Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to follow the same path that all of histories other failed federal healthcare initiatives took.

Pelosi and Reid are not discussing healthcare with their Republican counterparts. They are simply crafting a proposal together that will suit the desires of their major backers such as the N.E.A., C.W.A., AFL-CIO and UAW.

Left to their own partisan tendencies these liberal leaders are allowing an alphabet soup of special interests influence a national policy for all Americans. Facts are not the soul determining factor in their partisan proposal and neither is the Constitution of the United States. The one sided healthcare bill being thrown about in Congress today totally ignores the founding principles of our once and hopefully still great nation.

The current conduct and intentions of the liberal controlled federal government simply proves that history repeats itself.

So much so that the dated words of Time Magazine from 1960 can be applied to the contemporary plans of liberals in 2009. So much so that even the urgent warning about socialized medicine that Ronald Reagan gave 20 years before he became President still applies to approach to healthcare that Democrats are taking today.

Below is a video that I prepared which contains that warning. Look at it and listen to it.

Allow yourself to grasp the truth of his words and allow yourself to see how, in so many cases, America has already ignored Ronald Reagan’s warning. So much so, that I dare suggest that the degrees to which our nation has already adopted socialism would have The Gipper leading a second American revolution…..a revolution of restoration to life that Reagan warned we might someday be telling future generations all about as we describe how America once was when men where free.

 

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics