Jul 24 2009
What right has the government…
To dictate who shall live and who shall die? During one of his many “Town Hall” meetings, President Obama responded to a woman who asked (this is paraphrased): Mr. President. My mother needed a pacemaker when she was 100. She was lively and spunky. The first doctor said no. The second doctor said yes. She had the pacemaker inserted and she is still alive and spunky at age 105. Under your plan, could she have had the pacemaker inserted?
The President’s answer was (again paraphrased): Well..at age 100, maybe pain medication would be better. Is there anyone who thinks that if it were Mr. Obama’s wife or grandmother the answer would have been “Maybe pain medication would be better?”
In all of his rhetoric about health care, I have not once heard Mr. Obama say how incredible the health care system is in this country. He never cites the fact that people from other countries come here for treatment.
Does our health care system need reform? Yes. Does it need a complete overhaul? I suggest the answer to that question is a resounding NO! People need to look into what is happening in countries that have the type of health care system this administration is pushing. One example is Canada. The average wait time to see a patient’s primary care physician in Canada is 49 days…more than double the time in the United States.
If you are sick, do you want to wait 49 days to see a doctor?
In his town hall meeting in Shaker Heights, Ohio the other day, President Obama stated that people in Washington have a tendency to avoid the tough issues and voting on the tough issues. I suggest that Americans look at Mr. Obama’s record when he was a United States Senator and ask why, then, did he vote present most of the time instead of actually coming out on one side or the other of an issue.
I contend that what is going on now in Washington is all about control. Control over people’s lives. Control over telling people how they can live. In other words, an attempt to remake this country. Will we recognize our country when the idealogues are done with it?
Before this health care reform comes to a vote, I urge every American insist to their Congresspeople and Senators that an amendment be added that states that the President, every person in Congress, every Cabinet member and their families be mandated to have coverage only through the public option.
Then, perhaps, we will see how committed they truly are to this path. Or, will they take the road that the President did the other day when asked a question about a certain type of coverage and he answered: “I have at least 2 doctors at all times.”
One last note…there are 300 million Americans who presently have good health care coverage. The stats being used for the uninsured is 47 million. However, one needs to look at that number. Within the 47 million, there are 20 million +/- illegal immigrants. There are another 27 million +/- who lose coverage because of their job, but then pick it back up again when they get a new job (however, that is not accounted for). Ultimately, there are really 18 million people +/- who are truly uninsured.
Are we really going to completely destroy a system that effectively covers 300 million for 18 million…or does it make more sense to take the time necessary to look at the present system and decide where cost savings can be implemented, what is actually causing the rise in costs, who is defrauding the system, etc. and fix those things?
Though your 18 million, by most accounts, is grossly misrepresented; I agree with the majority of your article. I believe our system is deeply flawed but I’m not sure a complete overhaul is needed. It has been established that the majority of extraneous costs are due to unnecessary procedures and excessive administrative costs. Couple those with some ridiculous billing practices ($17 for a band-aid) and I believe a regulatory commission would better serve those who are paying ridiculously high premiums. However, we still need to account for the millions of uninsured. Your hypothesis that those who lose their job only temporarily lose insurance is a bit ridiculous when you take into account the 9.5% unemployment rate. Even with unemployment checks; families are often forced to decide between eating or paying for a decent family plan. I know I had to. This is unacceptable in a country that throws around money like we do. This is why I support a full scale debate on the floors of Congress to come to some kind of a compromise. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about?
Nice read, just curious though (maybe a good follow-up article?) how do you think the system should be reformed?