Healthcare Reform....

I interrupt what was to be a couple more postings on foreign relations to comment on the increasingly fervent talk about reforming health care. There are two polarizing sides of the health care debate, Ted Kennedy and Rusch Limbaugh. President Obama seems to be more heavily leaning toward the Ted Kennedy side of things. My questions are about how this affects our freedoms and ability to live freely in American, the way our forefathers believed. First problem with this plan is that today, with the economy in a free fall and Washington printing money like its going out of style how does Obama plan to pay for this. Along with paying for this why does he believe that now is the time to do this. There is a enormous deficit to be repayed and now is not a time for our country to fall deeper into debt. True to form Obama seems to have a solution to this, tax the top 5% of our ecnomy even more, and not allow for the same deep deductibles for this bracket. What has our free market economy thrived on for the past couple decades? Consumerism. This consumerism has been the basis for both our problems and our prosperity. The credit crisis was created because people wanted to buy too many things they couldnt afford and washington lowered interest rates so money was cheaper to buy than it was actually worth. On the flipside this consumerism has provided companies with bloated profits allowing for unprecendented growth both at home and abroad. We have become the shoppers of the world. How do we restore both growth and prosperity to the country without sending us into a tailspin of debt, inflation and subsequently conflict.
Healthcare reform is not the answer. My own qualms with universal healthcare put aside we have to realize that before Obama's social initiatives should be even drafted the economy needs to be stabilized and a coherent and transparent plan for solving the DEEP deficiet needs to be aggreed upon. Onto my specific concerns with universal or social healthcare [despite Obamas assertions that it is not social healthcare, yet many of his committees are based off of a British model; Britain meets the definition of social healthcare]. Universal healthcare with a government option will ultimately lead to the downfall of the majority of private healthcare. Other than the uber uber rich, hundreds of millions of dollars, there will be no where else to turn for the ordinary citizen. There will be a set formula with very little choice if any [think an expansion of medicare]. Isnt ththis against the natural tenants and democratic philosophy of the United States? I believe so. Without market competition in this instance for both the private and public sector there will be no market forces to lower costs or increase the quality of health care. The private companies that remain will only cater to a select few. Their costs will be astronomical with no competition to drive costs down and their services will be little if any better. The public plans will not encounter any compeition and will run just like all other government run programs. Miles and miles of red tape, long waits, lack of choice and controlling and restricting regulations that will finally pervade into our most personal of information - medical and personal choices. The long hand of the government will finally be able to ask us questions that they were not previously allowed to ask. Once they employ the doctors, nurses, oncologists, pediatricians and etc. their reach will be ever extended. This doesnt sound to appealing to me.
Obama used the example of fat people and once the government has a healthcare plan having those people lose weight so that they dont develop diabetes and become a drain on the healthcare system with a chronic illness. President Obama I say this to you, NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS DIABETES. But yes there are some people out there without enough common sense to do anything about their weight, but that is their fault. We have to, under the law provide them with help when they need it and they are covered under government health benefits. But look at the state of Californias economy, they are months away from defaulting. They have the most expansive and expensive social programs in the country. They pay for everyone including people who are here illegally. Why should we pay for deadbeats and people who just dont work. I understand that there are people out there who work 3 jobs and still cant make ends meet and we need to find a way to rectify that situation but I believe that their numbers are overstated.
One group who we do need to find a way to ensure are children. There is a vast number of uninsured children in the system. 80% of healthcare costs are for chronic preventable things 20% of this number are chronic chronic, now what age group do you believe that is in? They are mostly the elderly. Maybe we should focus on spending a little less on elderly healthcare and a bit more on providing healthcare to children and uninsured veterans [people who risked their lives for our freedom, the freedoms which are now under threat again]. Kids who are covered under some sort of plan should be required to work at the age of 16 and contribute into the tax pool to help pay for their own free health care up until 21. This will give them work experience and get them in good environments setting themselves up for success. The private sector should be able to cover elderly care and elderly care should be more focused on prevention rather than solutions if you get what I am saying. Back to those who are caught in between. I am from Mass the state which is just rife with swindlers cheats liars and all those who are covered by the long arm of the Mass establishment. People are not honest which makes me wonder about all these uninsured.
Nothing should be free, welfare is a tragedy as it rewards many for being sloth's. Healthcare cannot follow in these footsteps. Why should my parents or me when I get into the real workforce pay for both my private and good working healthcare and then pay also for some deadbeats, I just dont get it. The problems for me with universal health care other than the ones stated above. The waits, the restrictions on care and malaise of working for the government. Today the best of the best are attracted to high paying doctoral jobs. Tomorrow with universal healthcare just like with CEO salaries these will be capped, what does that mean for the influx of minds to now a government job? It will stop healthcare will suffer. Us all on the same plan, the red tape, the covering of asses the restriciotions questions and no competition? LONG WAIT TIMES, LONG WAITS FOR APPOINTMENTS, UNINTERESTED UNRESPONSIVE PHYSICIANS. People come to the United States to recieve health care, you walk into Mass General or the world class Mayo Clinic, all private hospitals with no government interference and you see people from all over the world. People who in Britain or Cananda or France would have to wait months for a procedure they can get in weeks here. It is unappealing to me.
Ultimately the question lies in our basic principals as a nation. The only things that we should be forced to do for the federal government are listed right there in the US consitution [including not paying an income tax but thats for another time]. Healthcare is for us to decide on, yes all should have it in a perfect world, but we dont live in one. Some people will always skimp out and some will always complain. The current system now serves most Americans much better than the rest of the world despite UN or WHO rankings. Our hospitals are the best, both in care and in innovations. The government likes a sure thing, the government likes to know whats going on and have control. This is another form, this will get them more money. Ultimately my biggest problem lies in this the 10th amendment. Healthcare is NOT for the FEDERAL government. I didnt gripe when my own state passed a increasingly failing mandate on health insurance, because it was within the right of my state. You will hear otherwise from me because ultimately this is unconsitutitonal.