For those of you absolutely stoked about national healthcare – This from RealClearPolitics.com on “President-elect Obama’s apparent choice for health and human services secretary” Tom Daschle (emphasis mine):
He [Tom Daschle] proposes setting up a board to establish standards for health care delivery in the United States that would be modeled on how the Federal Reserve Board and Securities and Exchange Commission oversee banks and corporations. Technically, it only would oversee the public health systems (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, etc.), which provide about 32 percent of health care nationwide.
On Page 179, he writes, “The Federal Health Board wouldn’t be a regulatory agency, but its recommendations would have teeth because all federal health programs would have to abide by them.” But here is the kicker: Although his board technically would have no say on the 68 percent of health care that is provided through the private sector, at the bottom of Page 179, Daschle modestly adds: “Congress could opt to go further with the Board’s recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board’s recommendation.”
Those last 19 words would spell the end of independent private-sector health care in America. Obviously, no health insurance would be sold if it were denied the tax deduction. Thus, every policy, every standard decided by this board would be the law of the land for every drug company, every hospital, every doctor and every health insurance company.
Indeed, 20 pages later, in the section in which he identifies “losers” under his plan, Daschle is admirably candid. Among the explicit “losers,” he includes: “Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to alternatives. Some insurers might object to new rules that restrict their coverage decisions. And the health-care industry would have to reconsider its business plan (emphasis added).” That is to say, they can stay in business and deliver their services, but only as the government bureaucrats say they may. They no longer would be genuinely independent.
In case you missed it:
“Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments…”
This is exactly what national healthcare will bring – the end of personal choice. When the government dolls out your heath care – government bureaucracy, NOT YOU make the decision over what treatment you may receive. It’s no longer your health plan, rather it’s the government’s.
What evidence do you have that the government can make better decisions about your life , than you yourself (or your doctor) can?
In general I would be willing to bet that in one way or another, most people feel that the American government is broken and/or failing in many ways. Try topics such as: Energy Independence, Border Security, Education, Welfare Reform, Social Security, etc…
So here’s the ten million dollar question: Why do we want more government? Why do we think that giving more money to government and expanding or creating huge new government bureaucracies would fix these problems?
If we are are upset with the direction that Social Security is heading, how can we possibly think that the government could handle the massive and vastly complicated healthcare and oil industries?
Consider the following audio:
And this isn’t something necessarily exclusive to Barack Obama. President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy is a classic example of a crappy one-size-fits-all big government fail. Many of McCain’s ideas (especially concerning environmental issues) are also thinly veiled ‘government solutions’. What evidence do we have that positively support big government solutions?
The government is supposed to serve the people. In what other instance would we think more money would fix crappy service?
Situation one – You go to a restaurant and you get terrible service: the waiter is rude, they don’t bring you what you ordered, and then an hour later when they do it’s cold and soggy – is it logical to leave a huge tip and decide to come back to that restaurant more often?
Situation two -You take your car in to be serviced and it takes twice as long for them to fix it as they first quoted you, and they charged you twice the price even though they don’t really fix the problem – Should you agree to pay twice your promised price? Should you return to that business with a larger problem or recommend it to friends?!?
With government programs, it’s an even more absurd situation. Once a government program is in place YOU ARE FORCED TO PAY THEM more money through taxation for FAIL-tacular service. That crappy restaurant you went to…oh well, the community has decided that that’s where you are going to eat and spend your money. Those jerks that screwed your car over…too bad, the votes are in and that’s where the collective has decided you will be required to take your car…
Don’t be fooled – big government solutions are what Socialism is all about. The government takes a huge amount of your hard earned money so the elected few can decide how and were to waste it. (Note who has the deciding power there.) Whose judgement on how to spend your own money would you prefer: Yours, or Washington’s? Would you rather take money from your own wallet and choose how to spend it – or be forced to pay into the collective and let the community vote how you should spend it? The latter is exactly what you will get with Socialism.
Also, in my opinion, it is important to remember that just because you are fed up with the current government, this does not mean anything new would be better. I find this to be the huge problem with Sen. Obama’s campaign on ‘change’. Again, what change? Is increasing taxes so we can throw more money into the morass of government bureaucracy a good change from the current government? Is that really a change at all?
To me, this is a major concern in this years election. Which candidate is promoting the most government based solutions (aka: Socialism or Epic FAIL) to problems? That candidate will be receiving a fatty ‘No Thank You!‘ from wtc. Hopefully the other candidate will be open to criticism if they propose similar crappy big government solutions.
MS: I loved that line about this will be the moment when the rising oceans begin to subside (laughing)
MS: You know, you mentioned this windowless basement I’m in.
MS: There’s no link with the outside world except a clock, which is stuck at 8:00. and that’s government bureaucracy for you. You know, in British Columbia, it claims to be able to eradicate hate, but it can’t get someone in to restart the clock. And it will be the same with the Barack Obama presidency. He can make the oceans (laughing)…
MS: …he can make the oceans subside, but will he be able to improve border security? I doubt it.
Read the full transcript
|Ed Darrell on The Ban of DDT: Science That…|
|Matt on Sing for Change!!! Children Si…|
|Poster on Where does the Electricity com…|
|Chris Gilbert on 30,000 Scientists Rejecting An…|
|ed hill on The Ban of DDT: Science That…|