|
Having a Go At
It ! |
|
Everyone has a different perspective on virtually every event or issue that becomes part of public discourse. The problem we have with resolving public discourse is that we don’t make a rational evaluation of the facts, potential solutions, and potential consequences, known or unintended. We are limited to anecdotes, sound bites, talking points, selective reporting, etc., filtered through “talking heads’ or bias of various communications media. We therefore are left with little choice, other than take bits and pieces and put them together ourselves.
An example is the legislative movement of profound impacts to our society such as health care reform. A proper path would let congress follow their traditional path to create a consensus bill, and then allow maybe 30 days for public evaluation of the final bill, prior to going to the president, which would be available to all. This would allow all sorts of pundits to add their opinions, debate the bill within the congress, and after 30 days, pretty much have a total consensus of what is best for America , having had the opportunity to tell congress our concerns, and have congress consider the public inputs relative to reality.
Well, without going into the details, this is not how we do things. People forget that Obama wanted a bill on his desk by July 4th. Why the rush? Because he wanted to subvert a deliberative process that included evaluation of a real bill, with real cost analysis and impacts determined. (witness the stimulus bill that nobody read) And why did he not want this evaluation? Because the more you know, the less public support would be there. His agenda would be subverted by the transparency he promised as a candidate.
So why any rush to a bill? Why exaggerate the problem by claiming 47 million people being deprived of some right? (It took him 8 months to admit to 30 million and that has been proven incorrect by about 15 to 20 million) Don’t we have Medicaid for poor people? Aren’t there people who feel they don’t need insurance because of age and health status? Aren’t there people in America that are illegally here and don’t contribute to paying for any social services that some believe they deserve just because they are here? (Note that nobody is rejected in the case of an emergency regardless of status) Aren’t there people that have done all the right things all their life, who are barely making ends meet? Aren't there people who believe everyone else owes them privileges, goods, and services, for which they won't work themselves? And there are dozens of other questions like these that all relate to what we do, why we do it, inclusions, exclusions, etc. So what would be a plan if political agendas were removed?
Medicare was not intended as insurance in the normal definition of the word. It was more an entitlement, recognizing that seniors had paid into a system for years, and had supported and continue to support via taxes, other programs that benefit all citizens. The cost to seniors would not be free, but it would not single them out as a medical group, which would make their premiums higher than others because of its smaller size and health prognosis. So from this, the plan was created. The medical community signed on to this where most doctors just accept what Medicare pays, as do the hospitals etc. If there are any shortfalls, the costs are spread over the larger group of everyone else. This is equivalent to a business tax that increases slightly the cost of everything to everyone, including seniors. Is Medicare free? Not close. For a couple=
·
Part A is no cost
·
Medi-gap starts at
$2400/year per person, which is the cost of the medicine to the
government minus the co-pay. Getting to $2400 is quite easy for most
seniors. · It is not unusual for a couple to have over $1000/month related to medical related expenses. That is equivalent to the average Social Security payment.
· Tort Reform- the Democrats ask all Americans except lawyers to help solve the problem. We all know why, but still – why not? · Public option- The public option is a Trojan horse. Why? Because it is based on paying insurance companies Medicare rates, which are not based on insurance risk. Therefore, they are not there for any other reason than to legislate the insurance companies out of the traditional insurance business. The only option for them to survive with their prices for everyone at Medicare levels, would be for the medical community as a whole to accept less money for their goods and services, which translates to lower salaries for all involved, fewer benefits, less overall income that will effect research and development, less capital investment because of lower expectations, and so forth, and not inconsequentially, the economy in general by less money in the hands of the consumer.
Competition- Why do state insurance regulations prohibit the
sale of policies across state lines. Many states stifle competition
by limiting who can sell in their state. Why?
Summary- I could go on all day if I had approached this topic as if I was writing a book. A good outline, points in each category, etc., but I generally know all the issues and carry them around in my head. To explain it to a broad audience is a lot of work and I don’t have the desire to do it now.
My point in writing this to you is to reinforce the concept of the big picture. The health debate is only a single point in the larger debate with is the destruction of the traditional American way, being attacked by socialist philosophies that are not endorsed by the American people, and have historically failed and brought societies to ruin. Again another story, but it is pretty clear that “hope and change” is not what Americans want. They want competency of the administration of our government. We don’t need radical ideas to keep America at the levels we expect for ourselves and generations to come. It’s all about competency. It would help if we could make congress live up to their oath of office and the Constitution. When you get to the bottom line, everything is the fault of congress, because they do not take the tri-body construction of our government or the Constitution seriously. It’s all about their personal gain. Why do they exempt themselves from much of the legislation they write?
Sorry to expose you to the soap box, but as years ago, my purposes were always about the big picture. Setting goals and requirements, and being successful meeting them. What I say now is no different than 30 years ago. The topics are different, and personal perspectives are different, but the resolution of issues is the same. Charlie Smith offered “hope’, “looking into eyes to see the eyes of a tiger” (you may have missed that one) , and other platitudes, but as Charles Krauthammer said “Don’t listen to what he says, look at what he does”. And for a quote from me - “He puts the LIE in believability”.
Over the history of American, change is made by having the people believing in what government says. When government hides things, they get no support. We thrive on momentum, evolution, clarity, and transparency. We do not need or want radical change to anything. All problems can and should be addresses as you would address a technical problem. Political solutions historically do not work over a long term. Ask the Vietnamese, or Koreans, Israel, and host of other countries what they feel about the changes do-gooder did as political solutions to problems. The people always pay the price. An afterthought- The video below is typical of government spinning reality, to enable them to attempt to mislead the public. From this video, one might tend to think that the people referenced by Obama, have supported the bills in process and agree in SUBSTANCE with them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The people referenced support REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM. That is a concept based upon providing affordable access to all Americans, and the control and cost containment of health care, not the creation of anothe bureaucracy with government running health care. Obamacare is not a synonym for health care reform. All of the bills when pulled together will have some form of trojan horse leading to an eventual single payer system as described above. They are all products of a socialistic approach that will eventually destroy the marketplace based system that is the envy of the world. He is claiming that the eventual plan will not cost the taxpayer a dime and there will be no reductions in services to seniors, no rationing, you can keep your own insurance, and so forth, but if you read the above, you will see that it is unlikely that any of this will come true because the bills do not support his statements. Already, the insurance industry is moving away from earlier support as the details evolve and become known. The CBO gives preliminary estimates on preliminary bills. When final bills are created and signed, the costs are usually higher. The government always uses waste and fraud as a source of money, but it usually never materializes. We all support REAL reform, but so far, Obama is spewing more hot air, unsubstantiated by the substance of the bills, or any facts. Hold on to your wallets.
|
|
; |