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.

Obamacare is "Entrepreneurial" according to Pelosi

Few things get me as irate as this already-passed travesty of a healthcare bill (Obamacare). Nancy Pelosi, one of our special California representatives in Congress and current Speaker of the House, as well as one of the main promoters of Obamacare and it's "pass at any cost" strategy, is STILL trying to sell it to us.

One of the bills finer points, according to Pelosi, is that it is "entrepreneurial", meaning that it allows people to leave their jobs to instead work on their "talents". Apparently the two don't go hand in hand. Maybe she's not really advocating welfare . . . maybe.

This Pelosi-redefinition of entrepreneurial is completely disingenuous. Sure, if healthcare actually followed individuals rather than employers it would be a lot easier to take that risk of a new job or start-up a new business, but forcing individuals to purchase healthcare through the government (it's in the bill!) is not going to make people more willing to take risks, but rather less willing.

Risk-takers often fail, and with these new mandatory health insurance costs that just means one more monthly payment that has to be made whether you're actually in the black or not. Since when does creating a governmental monopoly compare to creating a free market of nationalized competition? Since when does sorting through bureaucratic rules, regulations and restrictions make people feel safe to try new things? Unless of course we're all on government welfare and we don't need to worry about little things like creating jobs or paying taxes.

And with the current economy, unemployment and continuing breakdown of California's financial viability maybe we'll all be "working on our talents" in other states before long.

Watch her in action (courtesy of uncoverage.net):

Chuck DeVore on Palin Endorsement of Carly Fiorina

Chuck DeVore on Palin Endorsement of Carly Fiorina

Posted using ShareThis

The Nature of Government

I've recently been told that it is the governments' job "to take care of us". Apparently this is the prevailing, if simplified version, of what those in Washington believe these days. I have also been astounded by the reporters and proponents of various legislation who seem to think those protesting current bills somehow don't understand what they'll get as a result of those policies.

There is a definite division between two world views. Although many things contribute to this division, there is a fundamental basis for it that has no compromise. One believes we should maintain our limited government and promote personal responsibility; the other believes that it is the government's job to ensure that everyone have a job, a house, health care and anything else one might need. One is a recipe for many variations and levels of income, comfort, health and safety with personal freedoms and responsibility as a requirement and the other is a recipe for a safe and secure nanny state with few personal freedoms or responsibility. The second is looking good to many people these days, but don't expect everyone to buy it just because there are some perks thrown in.

People around the world, who currently live in what I consider heavy-handed governments, genuinely don't see what we're all worked up about. That isn't because they live in such a state of utopia, but because humankind is an adaptable species. We like what we know. If we don't know freedom (and the accompanying responsibility), then we won't know to miss it . . . until we descend into the pit of unrestrained government and its accompanying abuses. Once we start on that path there is no real power of the people to restrain a government who is "responsible" for everyone's welfare. It's becomes a parent-child relationship and the governmental parent will pick and choose which complaint to hear and disregard the rest . . . then find a minimally acceptable (or not) solution which will be the final decision.

The nature of government is to grow itself, in money and power. A government is not capable of charity. A government is not capable of love or empathy. A government is not capable of limiting its own power. But now, we are supposed to disregard the basic nature of government and trust that this time it will be different . . . better. A person, an individual, is capable of charity, of love, of empathy. Each individual can be restrained to some degree by their own personal morals and the relationships with those around them. Individuals who refuse to restrain themselves and lack empathy or love reek havoc on society (murders, rapists, thieves) . . . how much more dangerous then is a government?

In our continuing quest for safety and security, let's not be lulled into the false promise of governmental "care". Care can only come from individuals who take personal responsibility for themselves and show charity to those in need. This is a hard sell to those seeking only the easiest way, but BEWARE . . . in the search for ease it is assured by both human nature and the nature of government that we will lose the most precious of gifts: Freedom.

Universal Healthcare - The Cost of Freedom

Many who oppose universal care talk about the financial cost of universal health care, but I want to focus on the real cost.

I believe in human rights. I am committed to compassionate causes. I believe we have an obligation to care for the poor, the sick and the needy among us. We also have a duty to watch over and protect the elderly, the disabled and the very young. In general, I think we're happier when we watch over and help each other.

Genuine compassion is an important ingredient to fixing our health insurance woes, but it is under the very guise of compassion that many proponents of universal health care do more harm than good. I've been told that there is no compassion in a system that allows people to suffer and die because they can't afford insurance. In response, I ask, is it compassionate to ask those very people who most deserve our help and protection to commit to a path that leads away from freedom and happiness? The answer is NO. This cost is too high.

The founding fathers of our country believed that what we now call human rights were God-given and self-evident. Self-evident, god-given rights are rights we are born with in our most natural, least hampered state. Humans are universally endowed with these natural rights. All people in this natural state can be born, use their mental capacities, and seek for what makes them happy, without government assistance or even the knowledge of government. While the government can take away a life through a death or prison sentence, it cannot give it. It can take away our liberty by creating a police and nanny state, but it has only to get out of the way for us to have it again. In protecting us from each other, a power-hungry government has found a million incremental ways to take away our freedoms in exchange for "security".

A progressive society strives to replace "god-given" with "government-given" and "self-evident" with "politically prudent". Progressives claim that health care is a right. By making this claim they propose that human rights are "government-provided". Social programs like universal health care are not "self-evident" or "god-given", they are a direct attack on the very foundations of our country and must be met head-on.

If we agree to this progressive definition of human rights, then we capitulate to the idea that it is the government, not a higher power, who provides those rights. If the government provides our rights, it will be the government who decides our rights. Who merits rights, how, what and when we receive them all become open to the whims of politicians and the trends of the moment.

Since the government would then be in charge of your health, it will also have a direct interest in making sure you are making healthy (i.e. cost efficient) choices. This is a slippery slope of direct and universal governmental intrusion into daily life.

What the government gives, the government can and will take away, ration and control.

Of course, there are other concerns regarding universal health care. If we were today to accept universal health care we would not only pay directly, but also indirectly in the form of increased taxation. The government will take our money and using new and improved rules decide what our doctors can charge, what procedures we can do, and limit our pharmaceuticals to whichever they've been able to buy in bulk. Such programs cannot be maintained unless there are more people putting in more money than are taking out. This balanced triangle quickly becomes inverted in times of population flux, economic downturn and a multitude of other factors. Those still supporting the programs will be increasingly relied upon to fund it. As we've seen in European countries, universal health care is also a blinking neon light to all those who most need it, adding increasingly complicated immigration issues that create further imbalances in the system.

A study on health care in the U.S. concluded that "competition occurs at the wrong level, over the wrong things, in the wrong geographical markets, at the wrong time." (Porter & Teisberg). It's time to do something right where health care is concerned.

I think it's not only time to recognize the real problems of our health insurance industry, but to also remember that there is always more than one solution to any problem. Those who'd like to see us become like France, or anywhere else in Europe, have failed to recognize the greatest benefit of living in a country that still recognizes and protects true human rights and restrains the arm of the government. Let's be a little less concerned about letting the government protect us from each other and a little more concerned about who is going to protect us from our own government should we continue to surrender our rights for "security".

Let us be compassionate to our children as they grow up in a world that still protects their freedom from such governmental power and intrusion.

Universal care is not the answer because the ultimate cost is our freedom.

The Subject of Health Care in the U.S.

Health care is a touchy subject these days. As Obamacare flags under Pelosi and Reid's whipping, California's own senator Mark Leno has finally gotten SB 810 Calfornia Universal Health Care Act to pass the State Senate Appropriations Committee (6 to 3) and it is now waiting to be voted on again, probably in the spring.

We'll discuss SB810 in great detail in another post, but it's clear that the subject of health care ignites the emotions of many Americans for many different reasons. Some are committed to the vision of universal health care, some are committed to a market-based solution, most are afraid of losing what they have for some shiny cheap new toy that will show its structural cracks within minutes of actually getting played with.

This current debate is a perfect opportunity to DO something to our current system, but let's be sure that in all the heat we don't lose sight of the end game: we need improvements, not just changes.

here we go

testing, testing . . . 1,2,3