Heath Care reform (so-called) has moved from the House to the Senate. Regular readers know I think the proposals being debated in Washington are budget-busting abominations. I am quite hopeful that somehow sanity will reign and this effort will be stopped.
I received an essay from a friend on this topic and I wanted to share it with you. The author of this guest essay is local attorney, Patrick B. Naylon.
Why do we have criminal sanctions for certain types of conduct? Is it a crime to make money? Is it a crime to buy a new house, a new car? Is it a crime to go on vacation? Is it a crime to enjoy life? Is it a crime to go to the doctor? People know those things are good for them, and they don’t have to be forced by criminal sanctions to do them! If it is good for you, if you need it, you’ll do it on your own! There is no need for a criminal sanction.
So, in the health care debate, just ask yourself this question: why would the government have to make it a crime for an individual if they fail to sign up for their new government mandated health insurance? If it is such a great improvement, why wouldn’t people be clamoring to sign up? Why would they have to make it a crime not to join? The answer lies of course in the question. Indeed, you might also ask, if that is the solution, why not just leave the present system in place and simply make it a crime to not have insurance? That won’t cost tax-payers anything!
What more do you need to know about this health care reform bill than that it is a crime not to sign up! It means that when you read what you are being given, you won’t want it. Accordingly the only way to get you to sign up, is to make you sign up for fear of criminal prosecution if you don’t. In short, it is just another tax! First the IRS, now the Medical Revenue Service! The fact that it is a crime not to join should tell you all you need to know about this inappropriate government mandate relative to your health care options.
In fact, the manner in which the government has proceeded to “cure” the ailment of our health care system, should serve to demonstrate that the government is not equipped to handle the responsibility for health care for Americans. In health care, before finding a solution, the problem must be identified. What do the Doctor’s do when a patient arrives in the ER? Do they simply start treating the patient before they diagnose the problem? Giving treatment without identifying the issue would be inappropriate, ineffective, and wasteful. When a treatment didn’t work, the physician would repeatedly have to go back to the drawing board, coming up with another treatment regimen until one is found that works. If that were the approach, the patient might very well be dead before the appropriate treatment is identified. Hence, before treating the patient, the ailment is identified.
In its approach to health care reform, the government has not bothered identifying the conditions in need of reform; instead choosing to treat the patient for everything and anything, simply because they have identified the health care “patient” as sick. The treatment is “reform”, of everything and anything, the entire system, rather than identifying the area of need. They have simply identified the patient of “health care” as sick, acknowledged it needs treatment , that is “health care reform.” They have come up with a treatment plan, via their “health care reform bill.” Unfortunately, they have not adequately or appropriately identified exactly what part of the health care system is in need of reform. The solution they propose is therefore inappropriate, ineffective and wasteful.
Is the patient “health care” in perfect condition? No. Is there a need for correction, or treatment, yes. The patient, however, is not in extremis. In fact the patient, happens to be the best health care system in the world! That is an absolutely undeniable fact. So why are the politicians calling a health care system “code blue,” placing it on a ventilator, and transplanting all of its organs? That is government malpractice that will undoubtedly kill an otherwise healthy patient, which is merely in need of a physical exam and recommendations for a better future.
Tell your congressmen and senators to stop with the “cure” until they identify the exact problems and come up with appropriate solutions for the best health care system in the world. Why don’t they identify the exact problem and take appropriate steps toward a solution? Ultimately, you must ask yourself why the government is suggesting and pushing so hard for head to toe surgery on a healthy patient. It is clearly not for the patient’s benefit.
Your senators and congressmen claim to be the physicians ready to cure the health care patient. Demand a diagnosis, consider a second opinion, before they put you under anesthesia and start cutting!
I think Pat has the question right; why are we completely overhauling (at incredible expense) a system that the vast majority of Americans say works fine for them? Clearly, we need to cut the costs associated with health care, but the current legislation will only shift the cost burden to taxpayers.
No, it seems clear that the real reason for this monster is the general left/liberal belief that government should control every aspect of our lives. Between health care reform and cap and trade, the liberals are poised for a take-over of monumental proportion. Our only hope is that the American people wake up to the threat before its too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
To Repoman and friend:
As attorneys do you ask why it is a crime not to have auto insurance. Do you ask why it is a crime for an employer not to have workmans comp insance? The answer is simple - if all drivers on the road are covered by car insurance - when accidents happen - none of those involved in the accident will be left destitute. Come on gentleman - let's raise the bar here.
It is stated that the gov't is not equipped to handle the responsibility for health care for Americans. Is that the dispensing of the care or the payment for it- just what is your argument. Either way- ask the soldier bleeding on the streets in Iraq- if the American gov't can dispense health care.Ask the millions of seniors who are covered by a single payer governmnet plan. Ask the veterans of this country if they receive adquate care. When the VA hospital in Canandaiqua was to be closed and vets told to go to private- for profit faciilites - to receive their treatment- there was a hue and cry from all segements of the community including - indeed led by - local Republican party office holders- demanding that this government provided health care facility remain open. Why was that?
It is also stated that we have the best health care sysetme in the world. That is simply emotion - not fact. Study other sytems- Canada- Germany- Switzerland- Japan- Austria- look at how many people they cover (all) look at the % of GNP they pay compared to ours- ask the questions- do they cover mental health on par with the physical- do they cover dental as an integral part of health care.
I have recently read an account of a Fortune 500 company sending one of it's employees to Sinapore for a knee transplant. The cost in the US of A was estimated at $100,000 to the company's insurance - raising the premiums the employees would pay. Going to Singapore- with the cost of the air fare- the hotel and the serivce of excellent doctors- the cost was $40,000. A system that delivers the highest quality care at the cheapest price- that is the best system in the world. That is not our system.
Finally on a reated subject- GOP Chairman Steele- has just nixed abortion coverage for employees of the RNC> It appears that employees had coverage for abortion since 1991.
So all the while the party has been knocking a woman's right for abortion- getting the christian right to vote for it's candidates-largely on that issue- employees of the RNC have been covered for abortion- paid for with contributions from those opposed to it.
My point is simple- study very closely our health care system and acutally spend a few hours studying other systems -your frame of reference is yours and not the same picture seen by 10s of millions of citizens in this country. I sure Chariman Steele would agree- before we start pounding our chest- we ought to have the courage to look at the reality.
Anonymous:
You raised a number of points here and I will take the time to respond over the next day or so, but your auto insurance analogy is not quite on point.
First, the purpose of requiring auto insurance is largely to protect "the other guy"; the pedestrian, the innocent driver of the other car, passengers.
Second, and perhaps more important, health insurance does not simply insure against catastrophic losses. Health insurance insures against the costs of routine health care, "oil changes" to complete your analogy. If that came out, the cost of health insurance would be far lower.
Further, the costs of medical treatment would come down because we would care about how much our doctor charged for a check-up or a treatment and the cost of pills. We would have people think twice before running to the ER instead of the less expensive urgent care facillity.
The "crime" is that Congress is not solving the cost problem, it is simply expanding government control
Repoman:
Yes, auto insurance protects 'the other guy" but it protects both parties . If Driver A causes a situation in which Driver B is injured and his property damaged, Driver B' insurance commpany will receive money from Driver A's auto insurance. Let's say Driver A did not have auto insurance but did have a home and $ - Driver A might as well kiss them good bye - attorneys for Driver B will see that Driver A pays. So auto insurance indeed protects both parties.
No American will be denied medical care if needed. The great majority of citizens should not have to pay for that care for those who choose not to have it. It must be mandated that all people must have medical insurance. The question is how do we come up with plans affordable to the poor and middle class. Certainly private for profit or indeed not for profit health insurance companies don't appear to be coming forward with any plan.
Certainly we need more competition in the insurance business. How about the opportunity to buy insurnace from 15-20 carriers in Monroe County - not 2.
We have bright -intelligent young people in this community and country - why aren't hospitals increasing by 10 aND 20 fold the number of medical students. Maybe the CEO of St. John Fisher should nix the ideal of a local law school - how about putting an additonal 500 doctors on the steet within the next few years. Lets' drive down the dam cost. Likewise, could we please build medical imaging devices like we build coins- they should be in every office and cheap to use.
The whole medical establishment needs to opened up to competition. At least the government option is a step in the right direction.
Anonymous:
What you said about competition made perfect sense. Then you suggested that the government option would be a step in the right direction. How?
The government option will become the only option. Then the cost will only be able to be controlled by cutting service. Plus, please don't kid yourself about where the best doctors will end up. They will be in private clinics in Mexico or the Caymans. People with means will "vote with their feet" and pay for top care. This will include your favorite pols, as well.
Meanwhile, the average Joe will get stuck with the government doctor and the government level of treatment. Can you give me an example of a government service provided at a higher level and lower cost than the private sector? I doubt it.
We don't need this Washington monstrosity to increase competition. Why not simply allow interstate competition among insurance companies? Why not insist that insurers offer catastrophic care insurance but work to limit "routine maintence" insurance? If there were two Doctors of equal competence competeing for our business, because we had to pay out of our own pocket, we would choose the cheaper one. Today, its irrelevant to us.
There are some options that do not require the complete overhaul of the system. We simply cannot afford the debt burden that will result from this "reform".
This is a different anonymous, but what concerns me more than anything is that the government thinks they can handel healthcare.
Just look at how screwed up "cash for clunkers" was. They can't handle a couple thousand dollars for a car, does anyone really want them holding our medical records or paying for chemo?
To Anonymous:
Many private business concerns pay their vendors on a 60-90 day schedule. Most small business owners accept that ( they have no choice if they want to do business) and plan for that.
Please tell me how the cash for clunkers program was "screwed up" as you put it. Are you referring to media hype about some dealers unhappy because they had to wait 30 days for the paperwork to be reviewed, verified and a check cut? Please - let's be fair here. Perhaps some fly by night "dealerships" were complaining, but reputable auto dealers know the program was very efficient. Better yet how about this: next week, say on Tuesday, when the company comes and takes away your trash- get right over there- before 5:00 p.m. and pay the money you owe. Don't wait a few weeks until the bill comes, and don't let it sit a few more weeks before you pay it. Rush right over and pay that Refuse company immediately, the same day they provided service. I would hate to see you labeled a "screw up."
Anonymous:
I think there is a philosophical issue here.
I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I'd guess you are a progressive who believes that health care ought to be provided to everyone. Since health care is really a "right", the cost is a not the most important issue. That's a widely held viewpoint.
I happen to think that the real problem with health care is the cost. If the cost was significantly lower, more people would access it, notwithstanding who was paying for it. I also think that if the cost to taxpayers is too high, that is also a big problem because every dollar we spend on one thing is a dollar we can't spend on something else.
One of my big fears is that the true cost of the current reform propsal that is working its way through the Senate is much higher than advertised. I think that one of the points that anonymous 2 may have been making is that "cash for clunkers", like most government programs, cost more than originally advertised.
There is no reason why any of us should take the CBO estimates, or the more partisan estimates of the cost of these programs, at face value. When have they ever been right about the long-term costs of government programs?
The projected cost of medicaid when it was passed was off by a magnitude of something like 10x. If these estimates are just half as bad, we will never recover from the debt burden that will ensue. The government will become unable to do anything.
I am truly worried about this possibility. I wish they would try some simple fixes first before gambling on the nation's financial future.
Post a Comment