LONG BEACH— My friend The Freedom Thinker has written a post on his wonderful site concerning the lack of health care debate. I agree that the current state of affairs is merely a glowing beacon of non-debate partisanship all intended for distraction. However, Freedom Thinker seems to suggest that all ideas by both sides (i.e. Republicans and Democrats) are put forth as power grabs. To this I disagree.
I can see where the current bill is merely a power grab. It was originally sold as health insurance reform. Then has health care reform. Now it is sold as a box of delicious chocolates. The Public Option was there. Then it wasn’t. Now it is back again. And in the face of countless studies suggesting the current legislation does nothing to address the uninsured, make Medicare/Medicaid solvent, or reduce health care costs, we are learning that the Democrats simply don’t care. A bill is to be passed for the sake of passing a bill. It will do nothing but create a huge new government bureaucracy and increase national debt, but the Democrats can claim victory.
True horror.
But Mr. Freedom Thinker suggests the following:
True reform will be ending the idiocy of Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security to name a few. Cancel these systems tell the American people to solve their own problems government is not the savior of mankind.
Quite ideological. I could agree that these entitlements are a drag on the economy and ideally should eventually be done away with. But you can’t simply cancel these systems. It isn’t feasible. While I am not a fan of these systems, they are in fact obligations that this country has promised. An outright cancel is akin to default on a debt. And while I do subscribe to the notion that the Government is not the savior of mankind, it is the duty of the government to provide the environment for commerce. Besides, if the government were to simply up and dump these three entitlements, it would not solve the current issues within the health care system. The issues being affordability of care and insurance.
The solutions I have read, put forth by many conservative pundits are directed at creating just such an environment to facilitate more economically feasible solutions for health care reform. There are countless private institutions which work much differently and more effectively than the “typical” system. All of these are models for alternatives. If a politician proposes them, it doesn’t inherently mean it is a power grab.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
I agree totally with your analysis. Big government is at the root of our problems and never is the solution. If they would stick with protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic and let us be the crazy capitalists we are supposed to be we would be in better shape. They created the problems in housing and healthcare and they think more of their “solutions” will create a “better” America. It was pretty darn good before they got their hands into everything.
Had they not tried to run every aspect of our lives and stuck, let us say, with the postal service there would be a functional postal service. No they got into areas where they don’t belong so what they are supposed to do fails and falls apart.
12stepgolf.com
I agree 12stepgolf. Part of the problem with what’s going on with this healthcare reform debacle is that liberals are trying to paint our healthcare system as being “in crisis.” And they genuinely believe this. And that get mad at you if you suggest otherwise.
But it’s not in “crisis.” If we had extremely low survival rates for all manner of illnesses, if our mortality rates were significantly lower than those of other industrialized nations, if only 60% or 50% of people had health insurance, etc. etc., I’d agree there was a crisis. Instead, our mortality rates look pretty good, we are tops in terms of surviving bad deseases, and 90% of people have health insurance and 85% of those people like the coverage they have. That doesn’t sound like a “crisis” to me. Apparently, it doesn’t sound like one to a lot of Americans. And thus you have the drop in approval ratings for pop-culture P-R-E-Z and you have the backlash at all the townhalls. Because the libs are trying to sell us a horrifying plan on the basis of a crisis that doesn’t really exist.
Sounds like fear-mongering to me.
Sounds like they may be withholding evidence of a better system and replacing it with select data to paint a crisis, in order to get their preferred policies.
Sounds like the Bush Administration..?
Freedom Thinker is right in my opinion. Healthcare isn’t under the purvey of the Federal Government unless you take the standpoint that it is part of interstate commerce. However, it is currently the situation that healthcare is regulated and organized on state levels and isn’t subject to interstate commerce clause.
If they want to give everyone healthcare, provide welfare, manage retirements – let’s put it to a national vote in the form of Amendments. We’ll see how it goes then. A phaseout would be the only way that you can reverse the ship of bureaucracy that has already sailed. Damn the past sins of government!!!
Everyone likes to make the argument that healthcare is a right that is a proponent of nationalized healthcare. Just yesterday, our President basically made an argument akin to this. He is requesting that we aspire to our higher ideals, take care of everyone, and everything else along with the kitchen sink. What he fails to acknowledge is that we are in debt to our eyeballs, the blank check is going to disappear (i.e. sovereign nations are going to quit investing), and that ultimately this does nothing more than saddle us with a greater load and ignores the Constitution. Even though this might be what a perfect society should do – right now is simply not the time and it cannot be paid for with our current economy.
Here is a rather interesting article:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107575/rise-of-the-super-rich-hits-a-sobering-wall.html
Gini coefficients will be coming down maybe?
Additionally, I think FT is incorrect when (and perhaps I am simply missunderstanding him) he implies that any idea put forward by a politician/leader is for the soul aim of retaining/gaining/increasing power. Mr. Smith went to Washington for a simple purpose. And that purpose was not to gain unending and unyielding power for himself.
A phaseout would be the only way that you can reverse
Agreed here. A simple cancelation would never work.
But the government is involved in commerce in that it provides the construct and arena for free, fair markets. It must be involved to that extent. This isn’t ‘Nam. There are rules. But as it stands now, I don’t think the proper method would be to cut everthing off instantly and let the people “fend for themselves.” That, in my opinion, would be the most irresponsible thing to do.