Archive for the ‘Public Health Care – The Cure All?’ Category

Public Health Care – The Cure All?

August 21, 2009 1 comment

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Our government continues to preach from the White House pulpit that government will not interfere with the private sector if they implement a public health care plan; and one has to throw a few red flags to that affirmation.

With Obama’s assumption that the health insurance industry was in a calamitous frenzy, with companies continuing to increase costs and denying preexisting conditions, the government believes a health care option should be placed. But before we can consider such an idea, we must ask this question – Why does Obama continue to articulate that although he encourages a public health care plan, we can keep our current health care plans even though he claims our current health insurers are raking in the dollars? I mean, the government is standing firm with a plan that shares the same standards to private insurers at a lower rate, and if that is the case, why should we continue with our current plans? The answer is simple – the government has no intention of upholding a robust plan comparable to what is offered in the free market. It’s not cost effective.  After time, the government would be forced to place limitations on patient care.

The decision to limited medical services is inevitable. There is no other way. If a person has cancer and only have a few months to live, why pay the thousands upon thousands of dollars in chemotherapy to only extend his/her life for a couple more months? Sure, the far left will say they would never support euthanasia, but really, who can afford to constantly pay for someone who is going to last only months instead of years? These types of scenarios would suck the public option dry.

Barack Obama even said during a televised broadcast where a woman told the story of her 99-year-old mother and receiving a pacemaker. She asked the future president if the public health care option would allow the government to refuse her pacemaker because of her age. Here is Obama’s reply:

“We are not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture, and a society, starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that its loading up on additional tests or additional drugs, that evidence shows that its not necessarily going to improve care. That at least we can let doctors know and your mom know, ‘You know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.’ “

According to H.R. 3200, the government would set up a board to determine if a medical procedure is beneficial for a patient. A board will determine this, not your doctor!

I am not saying euthanasia would ever take place in our generation. What I am saying is if what Obama said is not groundwork to putting unproductive people out to pasture, then I don’t know what is. And if this is Obama’s principle of a public health care plan and the end product for the elderly, you really have to mull over the fact that your life will be turned over to the government. It is FAR cheaper to give someone who can not assist in producing a prosperous economy a painkiller than to have a pacemaker. The bottom line is, to Obama’s regime, the elderly (or in some instances, the handicapped and the mentally challenged) is a fruitless commodity to this country’s economy and a major expense when it comes to public health care. To them, it’s prudent to see the aging as a secondary group so the government’s agenda will work successfully for younger generations who are productive to our free market.

Another point to consider. If this proposed public health care plan is so magnificent, why do many Congressional members continue to close their eyes to demands for them to opt out their present health care benefits and take up this public plan? If these elected officials would do just that, it would save the taxpayers billions of dollars and convince millions of Americans that Obama’s plan is a good one.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) has brought to the table H.R. 615 which empowers the government to transfer current health care plans to public plans of elected officials who  vote “AYE” on Obama’s plan (see “Give Pols Same Care They Force on Us” and a list of Representatives who actually supports H.R. 615). To date, only 75 of the 435 congressional members support the bill. What is more amazing is NOT ONE DEMOCRAT defends this bill! (Rep. Fleming is taking a poll from Americans to see who is in favor of the resolution, please go to his site to vote.)

Finally, what will come to pass with the current health insurance providers if the government gets their way? Think about it. How can a company compete with another if that competitor can print its own money whenever they need to bring in more resources? How can a company function in what was once a free market when the government, the competition, can change the rules at whim? The government cannot go into this industry with an idea of making a profit. Laws prohibit it. These providers will ultimately fade away and ALL OF US will end up having to rely on the public health care plan. Obama even declared a dream of a “single-payer” health care plan during his candidacy. On June 30, 2003, speaking to an AFL-CIO Civil, Women’s, and Human Rights Conference, Obama said:

“I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal health care plans. . . A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

The video feed speaks for itself and the Democrats have taken over the White House, Senate, and the House. Do you see where this is going?

Currently the government is violating free enterprise within the health insurance industry. House Energy and Commerce Chairman  Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on oversight and investigations, sent correspondence to more than 50 of the nation’s major insurers informing them that the committee “is examining executive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.” They requested full information on the compensation packages of the companies’ highest-paid employees, as well as information on the companies’ boards, conferences and events they sponsored, the profitability of the individual health-care products they sell and revenues earned through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid (source: House Democrats Increase Pressure on Health Insurers; Washington Post, August 19, 2009). Now, do you think the same actions could be taken from a competitor within the sector? Of course not.

For quite some time, the government and their small interest groups have been scheming ways to control our every day lives, putting a ceiling on our liberties that our Founding Fathers would have screamed against. The government has been influential in what we should and should not eat, what we should and should not drink, and what we should and should not smoke. These are just a few. Do we now want the government to control what we can and cannot have when it comes to health care? It’s time for the government to give back control to its rightful owners – the American people.