The current bill and the current Democrat conception of government healthcare policy does not have the support of most Americans according to most polls. There is so much wrong, undemocratic, and un-American with both that not a single Republican Senator will vote for it. What is good about the bill is chiefly its measures to try to reform Medicare, to put it on a financially sound footing. These may be sound measures and probably not what Republicans would propose but they may help. Why weren't they part of a separate Medicare reform bill? What, if anything else, is good about the bill could have been proposed separately to help reform the current state of government healthcare entitlements.
There is much in the bill that is an affront to the tradition of economic freedom of this nation. There is much in the bill that will degrade medical innovation that has made our healthcare the best in the world. There is much that takes away our choice and costs us more through taxes and various fees and penalties. The bill essentially forces more insurance on many Americans than they want. Of course they will use it by demanding more services since they will be paying for them. This will tend to strain the system and raise costs. It will require a massive, tightly controlled bureaucratic rationing. This is where things usually break down, as with price controls. By rationing, I mean the usual economic definition of forced allocation of a service that does not have a free market to control it by the mechanism of price. This will mean less care provided and more people going without. Isn't it ironic that a supposedly free government provided service will result in less care for more people. That's what happens with all goods and services in a socialist system.
Most conservatives commentators think that the bills is more about a vast increase in government power over the lives of all Americans, making us more dependant upon government. Since Democrats have become the party of big government, it is chiefly a grab for more political power. Votes for the bill have been secured by huge taxpayer funded gifts to the states of Democrat Senators who claim to be undecided.
There is never any improvement with socialism. It is and has always been true that American greatness has been the direct result of our liberty. I predict that the bill will not pass. There has to be among the Democrats at lease one person of integrity who will look to the wishes of their constituents if for no other reason and vote no. There may even be one or two or a few who realise that government provided control does not improve our lot. Eventually, it makes any problem greater and creates more and more difficulties in all areas of society. Eventually, it fails. It may be our fate to learn the lesson that hard way, but I certainly hope not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A liberal friend told me that the portability inherent in the bill is what he likes. That too could be done without a take-over. (He also said it would save billions of dollars.) A liberal Time Magazine writer on Brian and the Judge said that the important features are: 1) no insurance company underwriting for pre-existing conditions, 2) no policy limits to cap total insurance coverage, and 3) insurance 'exchanges' to 'sell' policies. These are all far from free market ideas and would break any company that participates fully (unless taxes are so high it breaks us all). We already have insurance markets, although limited by state regulations. (The Time writer will brobably not be on that radio show again because they actually asked him to support what he said. They even asked a few questions. He was outraged.)
ReplyDeleteWhat seems clear is that no one knows how or even if these ideas will be incorporated in the final bill. Supporters see in it what they want to see.