Because healthcare costs threaten to overwhelm the country's fiscal capacity, Obama appeared to welcome a range of viewpoints regarding reform:
"In this effort, every voice has to be heard. Every idea must be considered. Every option must be on the table."Well, Mr. Obama, you're obviously willing to listen to the following voices:
- Big Union (AFL-CIO, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Building and Construction Trades Department, Communications Workers of America, National Education Association, Service Employees International Union, Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers)
- Liberal Think Tanks and Advocacy Organizations (AIDS Action, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, Change To Win, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, Human Rights Campaign, Physicians for a National Health Plan, People Improving Communities Through Organizing)
- Cato Institute
- Galen Institute
- Heartland Institute
- Manhattan Institute
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- Pacific Research Institute
- Pioneer Institute
All of the above organizations have developed scholarship for healthcare reform with goals that parallel Obama's -- improving quality, lowering costs, increasing choice, and increasing coverage.
None were included. So much for listening to "every voice"and considering "every idea." I will be tracking the development of Obama's healthcare reform, but am highly, highly doubtful that the paper-thin range of ideas he will hear can meet any of his goals.
What do these developments have to do with shining a light on the encroaching, smothering influence of the State? To put it simply, as future posts will develop the reasoning, healthcare reform in this pro-government climate will only result in a patchwork of expensive (politician-demanded) mandates, higher costs, lower quality, and sufficient compliance requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley will look refreshing.
And make no mistake about the ideological tilt of any healthcare-reform plans or programs that will eventually emerge. If you have a seesaw with a sumo wrestler on one end, and an infant on the other end, the outcome is already decided.
Posts
I will add this. Newt Gingrich has stated that if the waste and fraud were eliminiated from Medicaid and Medicare and earmarks were eliminated, the resulting savings would enable healthcare for all without sacrificing quality, Mr. Obama makes no mention of this, and conservatives (note I said conservatives not republicans) well know this. For those that work hard and pay for first rate care they should not now have to get in a government run and rationed (Examine Canada and Englands socialized heath care which is a disaster Mr. Obama does not care to talk about, pregnant women on the border of Canada flock over the border to have babies here, due to the shortage of beds and long waits for obstetricians). As long as Mr. Obama can push thru another socialist program he really does not care if you have to wait a month to see a doctor or 6 for a specialist, or that the government can didtate who you go to or if you are to old to have an opeartion. If you think his statement that you can keep your present doctor and health plan with no changes is accurate you are deluding yourself. Remember the federal income tax was a temporary measure to help pay for World War I. Milton Shapp the governor of Pa. in 1972 institutted the first state income tax as a temporary measure, both are still there, history is full of these examples and national health insurance will be a state mandated and run program on the whole eventually and a typical goverment boondoggle with escalating costs oncce it is in place. One more good example is the Social Security system. The feds have stolen from it for general funding since day 1 putting IOU's in place and paying benefits from the general fund. Where will the money for this scheme come from now that we are essentially bankrupt?
ReplyDeleteI see health care reform as the single issue that will bring about more government interference in our personal lives. Just look at seatbelt laws. What's the most commonly heard justification for seatbelt laws: because the government has to pick up the tab for uninsured drivers that are injured in car wrecks and wearing seatbelts lowers that cost. Just imagine how much control they'll need to assert over our actions (in our own best interest) when the governemnt is paying for ALL of our health care!
ReplyDeleteBrad B