We Must Repeal This!
Friday 12 August 2011 - 11:43 am.
Obama Care – Possibly the most grievous case of our government defying the will of the people in the history of our country! An act that should cause us, the legal, legitimate citizens of this country, to do a major “housecleaning” in the U.S. Congress in November of 2012!
For many years, since the early 1940s, for sure, the leftist/socialist elements in the U.S.government have sought to bring health care, one of the most critical elements in a person’s life, under the direct control of the central government. These leftist elements could see that, in those countries where this type of system was implemented, the power of the central government grew exponentially. This was almost a given, when one thinks about it.
Health care is something we require, at one point or another. “At one point or another” is the key to what we’re discussing, here. How much health care one needs depends on a wide spectrum of variables. Age, gender, genetics, levels of physical conditioning, possibly climate and other environmental factors; all of these may play a role, or any of them may be completely eliminated from the equation. That is why health care in our country has always followed a sensible, market-driven path.
A college campus will see far different health care issues than those encountered in a Florida or Arizona retirement community! It makes eminent sense, then, that these disparate communities should NOT be subject to health care regulations of the “one size fits all” variety. Yet that is exactly what we will end up with if Obama Care is allowed to take root as the sole provider of health care in our land.
Already, many of the more aware and engaged folks are starting to understand what is going to happen under a centralized system of health care management. The way it works is through a “formulaic” system of rationing and apportioned health care treatments. At present, when we go to a doctor, our needs are assessed by and judgments regarding our treatment(s) are rendered based on that individual’s years of training and experience. Under a formulaic system, the course of treatment is based on a standardized model of treatment based on the identified aliment or condition. The factors a trained physician could interject into the assessment will not be a factor. This could include knowing a particular patient, though quite elderly, is in fine working order, while a person many decades younger could be a drug-wasted shell of a human being. The formulas are quite specific, with no room for this kind of discretionary judgment.
If we were moving into truly new territory with centralized health care, one could make the argument that we should “give it a chance, it just might work.” Problem is, we have numerous examples of this type of system in other countries, and we see exactly how it works. Not in “theory” which is the sweet-sounding “everyone has coverage,” but in practice, where the care is actually administered. As any citizen of Britain, France, Sweden, Canada, or Cuba, for that matter, could tell you, these systems are definitely for healthy people, not those who actually need critical health care! All admit that for basic maintenance, like inoculations, flu and cold treatments, and the like, these systems work fairly well. It’s when life gets tough, when really specialized care is required, that these systems fail miserably, and the flaws are an inherent part of the basic design.
Centralized health administration is not designed (as we've been told) to provide superior or more cost-effective health care. It’s designed to achieve a leftist/socialist political goal. Countries that have centralized health care have their citizens trapped. They may not like the limited range of health services their government permits but, within their national boundaries, they have no options. Canadians, in incidents well-covered by the U.S. media, have been coming into the U.S. for years, to access services that they are denied in their own homeland. Perhaps “denied’ is the wrong term, as they really aren’t being told “NO.” They’re simply being provided unworkable time frames, i.e., three-years or more to see a renal specialist when one’s kidneys are failing, 12-15 months to see a cardiologist when your heart is failing. They come to our country and are seen & helped right away. For them, it’s often a true case of life-or-death.
It’s the nature of rationed/apportioned health care that is the problem. As noted, it is not established to provide superior health care, not in any way. It’s designed to allow politicians to stand behind podiums and say, “…we’ve provided healthcare to all….” But, while doing so, they’re fully cognizant that care will have to be, due to costs and the sheer number of people involved, tightly constrained. The system is designed to provide care only within areas where the formula identifies a system-wide benefit. This means a younger person, say 25 years of age, who needs kidney dialysis, will be provided that service. In contrast, a person who is 65 years old would be denied, as that treatment would not, in the view of the apportionment formula, show an overall benefit to the “system.” Translation: the older individual is statistically likely to die sooner, anyway, so provide the service to the younger one.
If you think I’m off-base with this, or I’m wildly exaggerating, consider this incident. I listen regularly to Neal Boortz, a popular national radio talk-show host. He told a tale I found hard to believe, yet I don’t doubt for one second that it's entirely true. He has a friend who is an MD. This doctor was part of a “physician-exchange” program that took some doctors from England and exchanged them with selected physicians from the U.S. The American doctor was working at a large hospital on the outskirts of London, for a period that was supposed to last 6 months.
A 70 year-old man came into the hospital’s emergency room, complaining of severe abdominal pain. The American doctor determined that the man had a severely-constricted bowel issue. So, he scheduled the man for immediate surgery & fixed the problem. Following surgery, he instructed the chief nurse of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) regarding the patient’s post-operative care, covering the monitoring and medications that had to be observed, etc. She sternly informed him that this man would not be admitted to the ICU, because he was over 65 years-old, and the rules did not permit this. The physician was stunned; he lobbied on the man’s behalf, saying the man was so fragile at that point he could die without the strict regimen of post-op he’d prescribed. She replied, as sternly as before, “We Have Rules!”
Long story short; the man did die. The doctor was incensed; he immediately severed all ties with the exchange program & left for America. This was right at the time there was a lot of coverage in the U.S. media concerning the “death panels” in the Obama healthcare proposal. Neil Boortz commented, “…you see, folks, they don’t even need a “Death Panel” to get rid of you, they just need a set of rules!”
That is the patient-care aspect of centrally-administered health care, and it will be just as bad here as it is in the other countries. Stewart Varney, of the Fox Business Channel, grew up with this system in Britain, and has nothing good to say about it. He tells of the nationwide failures of the system, and the individual failures that have befallen members of his family who still reside in Britain. No way to run a health care system, says he.
Additional problems with Obama Care stem from the fact that many of the provisions in the 2,400 page document have nothing to do with health care. The non-care provisions are there simply to expand the reach and control of the Federal government. We don’t need any more of that!! In addition, the people who foisted this off on us, the Democrat contingent of the U.S. House and Senate, exempted members of Congress from having to comply with the provisions of Obama Care! Let’s see, 204 Obama Care waivers granted in April 2011. Nearly 3,000 waivers from O-Care granted overall, with a high-percentage of those in Nancy Pelosi’s district. Hmmm.
Don’t the Dems always claim they’re the champions of “fairness & equality?” Treat all Americans the same? Don’t play favorites? They lie, that’s what they really do. They’re using O-Care as a way to further control the nation, not to make levels of care any better, not to make health care more affordable, not to make it more readily available. Relentless liars, plying their sordid trade all day, every day!
An additional consideration of Obama Care will be its cost. Already, our courts are finding the law unconstitutional. The lawsuits brought by the States are exposing the fact that Congress and the White House may not compel Americans to purchase a particular good or service. If it were to be considered legal, I wonder how all those Obama voters in their 20s and 30s are going to feel when they receive their annual Obama Care statement. They’ll say, “Whoa, I’m healthy, and may be for four decades; why do I need to hand the Feds $4000-plus, every year?? They’ll see the folly in this, but it will be too late if things have gotten that far!
In any case, the Obama Administration is now altering these provisions, attempting to call the annual fees that will be necessary to fund Obama care a “tax.” The government does have the ability to tax, we acknowledge that. It is good, then, that the courts have pointed out in no uncertain terms that our government may not “toggle back-and-forth," referring to a mandate as a tax one day and a fee the next! This issue is on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and should be quickly declared unconstitutional. Justice Kagan should recuse herself from this judgment, as she worked for Obama during the run-up to the Obama Care bill becoming law. She is already quite biased on this issue.
This is an older article (1993), but it deals with both healtcare and poverty. I find it very valid, today:
As I’ve said before, hand me the pen & I’ll make it 1964, again. I considered that year to be the “high water mark” in our democracy, and I still believe it, today. No EPA, no NEA, no czars, no centralized health care boondoggles. The government was far-and-away large enough at that point. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” was still in the “theory” stage. I wonder, if any politician alive at the time, if they had a “crystal ball to the future” regarding Johnson’s idea(s), would have voted in favor of the “Great Society” legislation? If they could have seen that it would make conditions worse for America’s poor, that it would, in fact, create more poverty, not less. Would they still, for partisan or ideological reasons, cast that “Yes” vote? I have to wonder.
And, with that as a historical “guide,” did the Democrats (every Republican, to their credit, voted against the Obama care legislation – they cannot be blamed) give any consideration to the lessons of the past when casting those votes? Did they take time to look at England’s healthcare system, or Canada’s? Did they consider that, as with the Great Society, this could be the tip of a multi-trillion dollar iceberg? Only this one’s worse than the “Great Society” since it extends to everyone, not just those who are, by an ever-changing definition, poor. No, Obama Care is even worse, a program that, if fully-implemented, could literally, “sink the ship” of our great nation. I wonder if any of the Democrats who cast those ‘Yes’ votes gave this any consideration?
Actually, I don’t think the Democrats considered any of these things. Barack Obama is president. He said he wanted to see this; the Democrats delivered. Even more should have been turned out in 2010, and not one of them deserves to be reelected in 2012!