Monday, August 31, 2009

The Case Against Government Healthcare

A daughter of one of our cousins posted on Facebook a you tube video showing the pro socialized healthcare point of view. Edie wrote a response, which ended up being too long to post on Facebook, so we're posting it here:

Before Medicare was signed into law in July 1965, healthcare in this country was relatively cheap and doctors made house calls, sometimes negotiating their services for something their patients could offer them (law of consecration, anyone). That all changed when the government decided to get involved and provide services for the elderly by instituting Medicare. Has it helped the elderly? Sure, there have been people who have benefitted from it. But what are the consequences? First, doctors and communities have become increasingly disconnected from their elderly, believing they are being taken care of, and so no one else needs to be involved. Second, Medicare became the standard for insurance companies to set their prices and services. If health insurance companies were truly competitive between each other without government involvement, we would see a huge decrease in prices and a higher level of service. But because Medicare, a government entitlement program, is the jumping off point for insurance coverage guidelines, the prices are inflated and the services rationed. I had a very kind doctor who told me to make another appointment to see her because she wasn’t allowed to spend more than fifteen minutes with me at a time. That’s your Medicare services setting the standards.

Do we need reform? Absolutely. Should it involve more government intervention? Absolutely not. It was government involvement that made the services worse. There was a time in this country that churches and local communities were the caretakers of their people. I believe that that should still be the case today. If our church or any other church believed that we should be relying on the government for care, you would see the church stopping their welfare services and sending volunteers to work for the government services. Instead our church encourages self-reliance and offers church programs to help us stay off the government dole. Is it always enough? Not always. That’s where communities step in. The law of consecration teaches that we will all bring our services to offer to each other; we should be doing that now on a community level.

There is a reason that a bishop in our church is assigned to have jurisdiction over ALL the people in his ward boundaries, member and non-member. Because we take care of each other. I believe that it is irresponsible and immoral to turn our duty to care for ourselves and each other over to the government, and I say that as a government employee.

The war in heaven was fought because we wanted free will and some wanted to take it away. Every time the government enacts a new program, we give up a little more of our freedom to them. And even if a healthcare program works under this president and this congress, who’s to say what will happen with a future president and future congress. And, then, it will be too late to get back our right to choose our healthcare. We will have sold out our responsibility and our free will to care for ourselves and others.

We do need healthcare reform in this country, but I believe that it needs to start with cutting back the current government involvement and restrictions.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ~ Thomas Jefferson

No comments: