Healthcare Reform v. Obamacare

Here's a tip for those of us "conservative ideologues" who want to stay in the closet. Don't ever refer to "Comprehensive Health Care Reform" as Obamacare.
Apparently it really sets the hackles up for supporters, who hear "These people use “Obamacare” as a derisive and derogatory slogan to demonize – as they do to the president – this serious attempt to deal with one of our nation’s most serious problems..." (read the full quote below).

While I respect the president, I absolutely agree that I use that term (Obamacare) to describe one piece of legislation that I have absolutely no respect for. It's interesting to note however, that just like "immigration reform", "healthcare reform" is only ever defined by liberals as one thing (ie greater government control of healthcare, or amnesty for illegal immigrants) and if you're not for IT you're not for reform at all. Apparently "these" liberals only see one solution to all our problems.

Just as I am unwilling to consider government as the savior to our healthcare woes, Obamacare supporters seem unable to consider the idea that there are other reform options out there.

Our country's health care system suffers from rapidly increasing costs for diminishing care coverage and people (like me) are worried about it. It may well be that this is the most serious concern facing our country.

It constantly amazes me that those who want Obamacare (or a single-payer system that goes even further) point an angry finger at greedy insurers, while seeming to retain a belief in our government's compassion. As humans, we are all full of little inconsistencies, and I spend time pondering my own, but apparently not everyone does. Bureaucracies are incapable of having compassion, mercy, etc. Whether it ends up being the insurance company or a government agency that makes the decision to refuse to pay for something lifesaving will make no difference when it's your life on the line. Only individuals can do compassion and mercy, and then only in a system that is designed to be fair. No, not the "new fair" which is defined as "it's okay to do it to somebody else if it benefits me, but don't make me do it", but the actual fair when the rules apply equally across the board.

For example, Medicare is not a program that I want to be on, or have my parents or grandparents on. It is complicated, bureaucratic and has plenty of sad stories of injustices to tell. Nothing is perfect though right? So we look to other countries to see how their social programs are working out. All that great "free" healthcare that accompanies upwards of 50% in taxes, with programs that countries in recession now find unsustainable and so must tack on additional direct costs to the individual in addition to the taxation that is supposed to pay for the "free" healthcare in the first place.

I'm simplifying of course, because although there are good things from these programs that we must learn from...we also have to learn from their shortcomings. However, when I honestly ask myself, would I rather just go with the best we've got as far as patterns for healthcare reform, or should we use our ingenuity to actually find a solution to the problem (meaning a sustainable, fair and less burdensome health care reform solution - not just wealth redistribution). I vote for ingenuity. I, of course, would prefer free market solutions that focus on the individual through several steps that I won't go into here. I know I won't get everything I want from any healthcare reform, but I want to be satisfied that it is actually as good and fair as it can be.

I am unsatisfied with Obamacare on many counts and believe that eventually even supporters will come to see its fatal flaws. (or is that just wishful thinking?)

So due to Congressman Ackerman correctly pointing out inconsistencies of "those people", I'll have to meet my personal challenge to be more consistent in my condemnation of government-bungled healthcare programs. As a result I will now refer to Medicare as Kennedy-Johnson care. Look for it in the future! Thanks Gary.

Congressman Gary Ackerman sets "Obamacare" Users Straight

April 16, 2010 by obamacar

from http://www.obamacare.com/

U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman wrote a letter to the The Rosyln News explaining health care legislation. The letter is a response to a critique published on April 8th, by a Dr. Melvin Hollander. Hollander'ss critique was written in response to a full-page ad Ackerman had taken out in the Roslyn News - ok - got that?

So, at the end of his very long and detailed critique, Hollander wrote, "The most serious problem with Congressman Ackerman’s ad is he is telling you what you are going to get, but not what they’re gonna take."

Ackerman didn't take to kindly to Dr. Hollander's editorial, writing a very long response. But I want to focus here on Ackerman's comments on using the word "Obamacare":

"The first clue as to whether you can trust the information you are being given is when the critic uses the buzz word “Obamacare” to describe the most comprehensive reform of our nation’s health care insurance system in its history. “Obamacare” is almost exclusively used by conservative ideologues who never wanted health-insurance reform in the first place. These people use “Obamacare” as a derisive and derogatory slogan to demonize – as they do to the president – this serious attempt to deal with one of our nation’s most serious problems – the ever-increasing costs of health care services and health-insurance premiums, the abuses of health insurers in denying and limiting the coverage given to Americans, and the fact that some 46-million of our neighbors have no health-insurance coverage whatsoever. (They don’t refer to Medicare as Kennedy-Johnsoncare, do they?)"

Well that's straight talk. So what do you think?

from http://www.obamacare.com/

Wouldn't it be great if I could have free healthcare? Wouldn't I love to go see my doctor, get that x-ray and visit the ER when necessary and not have to worry how much my poor health or unexpected accident is going to affect my family's bank account?

I don't think people who want universal healthcare are bad people. I think they believe that they are working toward a noble and generous cause. The idea that I would never have to worry about the cost of health care is of course appealing - who doesn't want to reduce one of life's stresses? - but this beautiful idea is predicated on false economic principles that will lead to my society's financial (and thus my own) destruction. Socialized medicine is government control of the medical field (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc) and although Obamacare is just a tiny fragment of this - government collects the money, but doesn't yet control the field - it is also just a stepping stone on our path. Originally, when Canada changed from a private to public system, Canadians were still required to pay into the system. Eventually that changed and payment was no longer directly required because taxes were substituted. Now decades later, more and more medical coverage is not being covered or is only covered at an additional cost - yet Canadians (often paying 50% or more in taxes each year) often balk at our extremely high cost of medical care.

This modern-day Siren of "free" healthcare is based on the idea that I will get the benefits that someone else will pay for. None of the socialized countries people point at actually have "free" healthcare; their healthcare costs are hidden in Value Added Taxes (VAT) and other general contribution funds that they have no say or control over since they've handed the responsibility of determining their health to their governments. This goes hand-in-hand with the rising tide of government regulations on sodas, fast food restaurants and drive-thrus.

I remember enduring a required economics class in high school, taught by an unqualified teacher (these were my thoughts at the time - remember I was maybe 17) who once tried to prove the idea that there is "no such thing as a free lunch". The entire lesson was taken over by the class clown arguing the idea that there is such a thing if someone else pays for your lunch. In his view this is the definition "free".

It seems that many people don't care WHO pays as long as it is SOMEONE ELSE. Unfortunately, I've seen this in some of the many bankruptcy cases where a family can't afford their lifestyle, but rather than scale back, sell their boat/ATV/Mercedes, stop getting their Lipo/nails/hair done every six weeks they'd rather max out their credit cards, hide their toys and stop their mortgage payments in an effort to take as much as they can, while they can. On an individual level I believe this amounts to theft. On a national level this sort of immoral short-sightedness is going to lead to financial downfall for our country, our states and our communities if followed as political policy.

Let me give you an example. The state of New Jersey has been following closely on California's heels in terms of raising taxes in order to make up for spending shortages. It's reached such a peak that this otherwise liberal state elected a Republican governor named Chris Christy based on his promise to slash the state budget and not raise taxes on their already overburdened population. And wonder of wonder he's actually making his political campaign promises a reality. When does that ever happen?

One of the first things he's attacking is the state's educational union where the teachers do actually get "the class clown's" version of a free lunch - in the form of free health care. Teachers don't contribute anything towards their own excellent healthcare and they've been getting steady wage increases each year. Meanwhile those in the private sector are leaving the state or working at steadily reduced wages. Christy's reform would require New Jersey's teachers to contribute 1.5% towards their own healthcare and accept a wage freeze for one year. The union continues to refuse these terms, preferring their teachers to be out of work then contribute to the system that sustains them.

There are no easy choices at this point. Not for the state of New Jersey and not for California. We have dug ourselves a hole and will have to make hard choices to get ourselves out of it. Unfortunately, no one in California seems quite ready to step up to the plate. Let's just hope that as our education, health care, crime and welfare problems continue to get worse that Californians will be able to recognize that there is no one left to give them a "free lunch" and eventually find a candidate that will represent limited government and maximum freedom for all. The only true freedom for all of us resides in fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility requires not only personal sacrifice (which our governmental representatives are always happy for us to make), but also governmental policies of sacrifice to reduce state spending, reduce tax burdens and stick with sound economic principles that will benefit us all more than the Siren-call of giant governmental oversight fixing any of our problems.