1. If the 'public option' is really about increasing competition, why are we not allowed to purchase health care from companies in all fifty states? We buy food from all 50. We buy cars from all 50. We order items online from all 50. Why is health insurance limited by state?
2. If 'health care reform' is really about making sure all Americans have health insurance, why don't we just insure the people who are not on another health plan, and call it good? Why does that take 1000 pages? Why don't we let health care insurance be attached to the person instead of the job? We're a mobile society; it doesn't make sense to have job-based health care. It would make sense if we kept our own money and put it in tax-deductible Health Savings Accounts under our control, and then had catastrophic insurance as a back-up, competitive across state lines.
3. If 'health care' is really about 'health,' why is abortion included? Amendments prohibiting inclusion of abortion were ignored. Not every American wants to pay for abortions; in fact, most don't. Congress needs to respect the will of the American people, instead of shoving this bill down our throats.
4. Why is it such a rush to pass this bill, when Obama himself says that his plan won't be enacted for another four years? (You know the answer. He doesn't want the American people to have a chance to experience this plan until AFTER the next election.)
5. If this is really about lowering costs, why is Obama ignoring what the Congressional Budget Office testified would happen... that costs would actually rise? Why is tort reform not a part of this plan? Why can we not choose the types of coverage we want, and the level of coverage, similar to what we do with car insurance? We know these options would lower costs. We may not be economics professors, but the townhalls and tea parties show that the typical American is growing increasingly frustrated with politicians who seem to have slept through high school economics class. Monopolies: bad. Competition: good.
I think you all know the answer to these questions. Government-run health care is about none of the above claims. It is about increasing control (1/6 of the economy), by grabbing more of citizens' money and adding layers of bureaucratic red tape. Let's look at the track record: Social services (dot gov. expanding since LBJ's War on Poverty, which has succeeded in lowering the poverty rate from 12.8% in 1968 to ...wow, 12.5% in 2007, for a total of 11 trillion dollars, according to the U.S. Census Bureau); education (dot gov since Carter, and with what to show for it? A dropout rate of over 30% nationwide); banking (now .gov.), agriculture (.gov and ever-expanding control through subsidies and regulation), car companies and car dealers (.gov and still failing), health care (soon to be .gov), energy (very soon .gov; Harry Reid said today it was next on his to-do list). With the increasing costs and regulation that expanded government health care will bring, our small businesses will go under and that crisis will 'necessitate' another 'bailout,' i.e. takeover. Let's face it, business is already well down the road to being a dot gov when the President can fire the C.E.O. of a company, select the board members, and dictate salary requirements on other officers and employees. These government intrusions are smothering production and creativity, stealing liberty, and killing jobs.
So, what can be done to stop the madness? Keep the pressure on, via letters, faxes, telephone calls to Congress. Work to elect a new crop of officials who understand the proper role of government as laid out in our state and federal Constitutions. Health care is an issue best handled by the states or the people, according to Article 2, Section 8 of our U.S. Constitution (and the 10th Amendment, in the Bill of Rights). The State Legislature needs to step up to the plate and protect the health care choices of citizens by setting barriers to federal intrusion and by enacting legislation allowing increased competition.
Make that, Article 1, Section 8.
ReplyDelete