President Obama promised health care negotiations would take place on C-span so the American public could be witnesses to the debate. This has not happened. The House passed a healthcare bill earlier this year and on Christmas Eve the Senate passed their version. Now they are in committee meetings behind closed doors to combine their respective bills into one bill to send to the President.
I, for one, think this promise by candidate Obama was one of the reasons he was voted into office. It makes sense!! I, for one, feel very angry he has broken this promise. I think all people who voted for the President should feel gypped and mislead. I, for one, want to know what deals are being made.
Nancy Pelosi seemed to be surprised to hear that Obama made these pledges (see video). . . .She and Senator Reid have allegedly refused a letter from C-span requesting full camera access to the final debate and reconcilliation of the two bills. Where is our President when all he needs to do is make a simple phone call to Pelosi to fulfill an obvious campaign promise?
I, for one, want to know how the Senate plans to prosecute people who do not buy health insurance. Yes, you heard that right, in the Senate's bill, the American public would be required to purchase a healthcare plan. Low income individuals would have their insurance subsidized. What is their definition of low-income? Can that definition be changed or adjusted? Who decides? How do you 'consolidate' a 1000 page House Bill and a 1500 page Senate bill in a few weeks so that all loopholes are closed and things are tidily set up for the American people?
Last time I checked, someone who doesn't follow the law gets fined, if they don't pay the fine they are jailed. This means your consequence for not buying insurance could lead to jail time. Where in the constitution does it say Congress has a right or obligation to mandate our purchase of something? Can't find it? It's not in there.
Is this what our governing officials have come to? They have to FORCE us to buy insurance (but if we opt for a so-called 'Cadillac' plan, we are charged a tax) so that all Americans will have access to healthcare? What ever happened to America- the land of the FREE? Can't our public servants come up with a better way to solve our health care problems than FORCING people to buy insurance? What about free-market strategies? What about incentives to companies for finding ways to cut administrative costs (besides the inherent incentive that cutting these costs will decrease cost to patients, thus attracting new patients-yep that's called free market)? What about capping non-economic damages in malpractice law suits? What about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines? What about making Health Savings Accounts easier to create and access- thus providing the public better incentives to PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES?
Did it ever occur to anyone that if it is the mandated by LAW to purchase insurance, at some point in time you may be rejected from the E.R. if you can't immediately prove coverage? Currently, NO patient can be sent away from the E.R. without care- it is considered unethical--it IS unethical. Does this mean my physician husband (and all other physicans) who has taken an OATH to provide his best care may be forced to choose between following the law by NOT treating an uninsured patient (like an illegal immigrant or some other unfortunate, law-breaking American) or breaking his Hippocratic Oath? I'm not advocating keeping the health care system as is, there are certainly problems, but I don't think some of the solutions just passed and readied to be made law are the right ones.
Some people might say I'm being an alarmist and this would never happen in our country, but I feel very strongly that when Government is given this much control of our lives, though their intentions may be good (provide medical care to all), we can never predict what the unintended consequences may be.
A former President of our Church, Ezra Taft Benson had this to say in a devotional address:
"Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. . . . . . .Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. . . . .
Consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism! Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."I can't help but think President Benson had a view of things to come in our country. In reading his words, I am convinced that the 'redistribution of wealth' that is occuring in our country is putting us on the wrong path. I urge you to fight against this.
Having said that, I must also remember that President Benson encouraged us to be committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. Am I doing this? I think I can do better. I want to do better. I am afraid that I have become complacent to the plight of others in need. Is this because I know when I see a homeless person I think to myself, "Why aren't they on welfare?" (sadly, yes, I have thought this). If the option for welfare were not around, would I be more compassionate? Maybe. I hope my answer will help me to realize that I am part of the problem. It is clear to me that I have a long way to go on my journey to be more like Christ.
I wish I had an answer. I don't. Maybe I'll wake up tonight and worry about that one now that I've got health care off my chest.
9 comments:
WOW! that was awesome!!!
I don't have a lot to say, mostly because I'm a whimp about polictically-charged subject discussions, even when I agree.
I wanted to share this link with you, though, because I have a feeling you might laugh and like it as much as I did:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121802219.html
FYI-check out the Kaiser Family Foundation website. It breaks down the Senate and the House healthcare bills, and compares them side by side. It's completely non-partisan, and explains things very well, I thought. It's at www.kff.org. Maybe that will help.
I think a civilized, modern, exemplary country with so many uninsured citizens is just as ridiculous as forcing, if not more so. Here's what I wrote about it:
http://michelleglauser.blogspot.com/2009/09/wherein-i-say-some-things-about-health.html
Steph, that was hilarious!! LOVE DAVE BARRY. . .why don't we vote him in as President?
Michelle, I will go and read your post now. . . and I really appreciate your candid thought. I am glad you feel comfortable to share your feelings.
I'm actually not sure if I agree with you, though. The important thing is that all people in a civilized, modern, exemplary society have access to health care. . which they do. My husband says that no person is turned away from the ER (insured or not). He also says all hospitalized patients are treated the same. A discussion of insurance status NEVER happens during morning rounds, EVER. He makes decisions based on good medicine-not capability to pay.
Now, it is true that many uninsured patients go to the ER so it will be totally free and this has led to extra costs and burdens being thrown to the federal government and those of us that have insurance. . . .thus, the argument should be HOW we can help these uninsured get that same standard of care without them resorting to expensive ER visits for runny noses and fevers--i.e. insurance coverage.
It is my assertion and belief that there are better ways to provide for these individuals that some nationalized public plan. . . government often mismanages funds and has little accountability. To me it is telling that the same entity (the federal government) which is about to bankrupt social security is asserting they will fix our healthcare problems nationwide. I don't think they are the guys to do this. . .they don't have a very good track record running programs efficiently (think of DMVs, post offices, the social security office, etc.).
Congresses job should be to make laws to protect individuals (like no dropping their insurance when they get sick and other ideas I wrote about).
I strongly believe that when the federal governemnt gets its hands on stuff, it becomes bloated and inefficient.
Camilla--I totally agree with what you have to say on this issue. I have been very upset with the way things have been handled by the senate, and them trying to push through their own personal agendas instead of listening to the people they supposedly represent. We are quickly moving down the road of socialism which will do nothing but harm our nation in the end.
I also echo your sentiment on the inefficiency of the federal government. I worked for the VA for a time, and was appalled by the inefficiency and waste of time, resources, and money. All the other jobs that I have held in the healthcare industry (which have been private) have done a much better job at controlling costs and providing care. I for one do not want the government running our healthcare system. Do they not see how the governments in Canada and UK have ruined their healthcare systems?
Well said Camilla. This stuff makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, ER doctors work up everyone with insurance or not (including homeless people who are cold and want some food so they come into the hospital and say those magic words, "chest pain" knowing that it will buy them a night in a warm bed.) The big problem I see that isn't being addressed at all is tort reform. These ER doctors especially are having to work up EVERYTHING they can think of in order to cover their behinds even when they know that the bills will not be paid but if they don't do all the tests they may likely be sued for insane amounts of money. It is my understanding that if the public option comes to be it will be protected from lawsuits but the private insurers will not... another way for the public option and the government to take over once they suck the private insurances dry.
It seems to me that lawsuits and "pain and suffering" is one of major causes of the insane cost of health care and therefore should be on the top of the list to fix in order to help everyone to afford health care.
just my thoughts.
(sorry for all the typos)
I haven't checked your blog in awhile and boy I've been missing out!
I love Ezra T. Benson's book, "An Enemy Hath Done This" such powerful insight from someone who experienced our government firsthand and realized and warned what corruptible power it has been given.
In regards to taking care of the poor, aged and unemployed got me to thinking. You know 6 months - 4.5 years ago we were unemployed (darn med school taking up so much time :) and most certainly were poor and still are) yet we were trying the best we could to take care of ourselves which required massive amounts of more debt. Yet, we still used our student loan money and food storage to help some others in need we were specifically aware of and some were weren't. I think first and foremost we are responsible to take care of ourselves. I look forward to the day that we can help take care of so many others on a VOLUNTEER basis. I look forward to donating much to Fast Offerings and food banks, to providing Christmas for some families in need, to helping with medical costs (again volunteer, not forced by taxation) to going on medical missions and many other good things. When you have more you are able to give more and don't forget that's what we are doing...providing for ourselves so we can help others.
Years ago I was donating many meals for others and babysitting some children whose mother was in the hospital so dad could be with her. I had often thought it was sad that Dan didn't serve often. He was working full-time and going to school full-time, and had two callings (so he wasn't home much). I'm very thankful for a question that was asked when a friend called to see if I would help prepare food for a funeral. She asked, "Do you need us to provide ingredients?" I didn't. Then I realized Dan does serve! He made it possible for me to stay home so I was able to help many. He worked to provide the ingredients for meals I donated. He worked so I could stay home and help some families take care of their children and ease that heavy burden. Ten years later I'm still so very grateful for that revelation.
With that I say to you, give yourself more credit! You serve, you love others, you help others and remember there is a time and season for everything and some day you'll be able to do more and give more.
Post a Comment