Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Legislating "health" and "care" out of the options

It seems as if the American people are spending more time than ever before having to write and call their Washington representatives. We vote for these people to handle our government affairs so that we can take care of our families, further our careers, and some day retire with a nest egg. That's how we want to spend our time -- and we want to be able to trust that, while we're taking care of our personal business, our Washington rep's are reliably taking care of our country's business.

Many people voted for change and the people in Washington took that to mean they could change everything. But the people didn't vote to drastically change the country; they voted to change Washington. They thought that change in Washington meant more transparency in government and more responsibility in spending. What they got for their vote is a group of people who are attempting to drastically change the country to socialism so that they can have more power and control over the American people.

President Obama promised healthcare reform, but he didn't author, nor did he read, the healthcare reform. He has stated that we will be able to keep our current doctors and current healthcare plans; however, that's not what the reform bill states. If the proposed healthcare bill passes, we will, eventually, all be on government healthcare.

So, it's time again to write and call your Washington representatives. Let them know that this healthcare reform bill is not the reform that you want.

David Limbaugh wrote the following regarding the healthcare proposal:

"Here are some inconvenient truths Obama must conceal from the American public:
--Despite White House-generated hysteria about the urgency of reform, the only urgency is in preventing this fiasco because it would destroy America's economy and liberty. Doing nothing -- even given the many problems that exist under the present system -- is far preferable to adopting this monster.

"--Proponents claim the present system leaves 47 million people without insurance and unable to get it. Bull. Almost half of these uninsured could afford coverage but choose not to obtain it; almost half only remain uninsured for four months; and millions are noncitizens. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million would remain uninsured after the plan is implemented.

"--Obama says his plan is not socialized medicine because he's just providing a 'public option' to make the private insurers more competitive. Well, he's stacking the deck with mandated coverage -- which, by definition, reduces competition -- and subsidizing the public option. He would provide incentives to businesses to move employees to the public plan. Also, once you lose your insurance, your coverage choices would no longer be grandfathered, and you'd be forced to buy a plan that includes Big Brother's mandates -- meaning most would gravitate toward the government plan. A single-payer system is virtually inevitable.

"--The plan is being sold as a necessary element of reviving the economy. No one, including the Congressional Budget Office, believes this bill would improve our economy, and most believe it would exacerbate our problems. The bill, with its taxes on successful small businesses and its Draconian regulations, would destroy job creation, as would increases to the deficit and debt the bill would cause.

"--Health care costs would not be reduced, but increased -- and shifted. Studies show that preventive care measures would not reduce costs. More importantly, the CBO says that even with the planned confiscatory taxes on higher-income earners (which no one can deny constitute real costs to them) and the penalties on employers who don't provide coverage, the plan would fall $239 billion short of covering its initial cost estimates of $1 trillion. And that's assuming everything goes well. But cost estimates for government programs are always understated. The actual costs for Medicare Part A were $67 billion, seven times higher than the government's 1965 projections of $9 billion. Even worse, the Medicaid special hospitals subsidy was $11 billion, more than 100 times the government's projection of $100 million in 1987, just years earlier. The only efforts at cost containment would come from artificial price controls, which would result in rationing -- most likely for the elderly.

"--The quality of socialized health care would not be improved as promised, but would necessarily deteriorate, as it has in all countries that have tried it and in our own government-run experiments of veterans care, Medicaid and Medicare. It's inescapably true -- as noted by Dr. Thomas Sowell -- that price controls would reduce quality care because they would reduce the incentive to provide quality.

"--Health care choices would not be expanded, but essentially eliminated, by government mandate. The White House isn't even denying it would force taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

"The apathetic and complacent among us must understand that once this anti-American outrage is passed, it will be enormously difficult to reverse legislatively, even with decisive Republican congressional victories in 2010 -- a task made more difficult with ACORN's stimulus-fed election fraud operation firmly in place and an ever-growing dependency class voting itself money from the public trough. It will likely require supermajorities in both houses."


And here's another good article:


No comments: