How did Congress expect to convince the public that they, the federal government, could manage our health care better than any of the other diseased programs over which they have taken control? Simple: they didn’t expect to convince us, because they couldn’t.
When the nation asked legitimate questions, Congress couldn’t come up with adequate answers, so they ignored their constituents. They let the phone calls go to voice mail while Obama subtly diverted the nation’s attention elsewhere and Congressional liberals followed suit and cleverly drove the conversation down a shameful detour. When they did finally respond, Obama apologized profusely to the nation, insulting the intelligence of the average citizen by claiming we, the people, didn’t understand his grand plan because he had not explained his roadmap to a successful health insurance reform clearly enough. Yet, when the nation still pressed for answers, Obama swiftly flipped the issue on our heads, calling our compassion and concern for the less fortunate into question and demanding to know who we are to question his decision-making skills in the Great Name of Humanity.
Now, instead of addressing the nation’s debt, instead of facing the sad fiscal and broken reality of existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, and instead addressing the concerns of the nation, Obama (and his Congressional liberals) made an appeal to pity, an appeal to the humanitarianism of their cause, and an appeal to the morality of our souls.
This health insurance overhaul is for the children, he cried. It’s for the single mothers, they told us. How can conservatives oppose a bill that addresses such a noble cause, they accused.
Sure, to the casual observer, this argument makes a liberal look much more empathetic (whereas someone who wants to “Kill the Bill” comes across looking like a greedy, money-grabbing rich guy who does nothing but drink gold and use his poor, lower-class servants as a foot stool).
I can see how it is easy it is for them to villainize those who oppose the health care bill with ad hominem and straw man arguments. It’s much easier for Congressional representatives to brush aside healthy debate from their constituents as meaningless if it’s coming from people they’ve pegged as ignorant, heartless, less morally aware, and therefore, in need of government control in their lives.
…but maybe, just maybe, people who oppose this bill still wanted to see health insurance reform as much as those in favor of it. Maybe they care about people just as much as those who directly favor the bill. I know, it’s crazy talk to think like that, especially when EVERYONE knows that inherently, those in favor of the bill are the ONLY ones who are more empathetic, who care more about other people, and who are less selfish, whereas those who oppose the bill, are just a bunch of greedy, millionaires who don’t care for anyone but themselves and would be much happier in a world without smelly, expensive pill-popping, old people to worry about. Let’s just say (strictly hypothetically, of course) that people on BOTH sides of the issue care about reform and helping the disadvantaged…
After all, the nation never got answers to its questions. We, the people, are still left wondering, who will control the flow of tax-dollars? Who decides where this money goes? Who is deciding MY health insurance plan benefits? Who is deciding my doctor / patient relationship? How will we pay for this debt?
Now, this week, as the pharmaceutical company Medtronic informed its employees that they will be forced to lay off 1,000 employees in the coming months, as Caterpillar and John Deere announced that they will take a quarter billion dollar hit thanks to the new health care tax laws, as 3M estimated they will take a $90 million hit, we still want answers.
We still want to know why it wasn’t possible to find a reform solution without imposing new tax burdens on companies.
We still want to know why it wasn’t possible to find a solution that didn’t involve bribing politicians for their vote when the overwhelming majority of constituents did not support the bill.
Wasn’t it possible to find a solution that didn’t exempt certain states or interest groups from paying into the proposed taxes?
Wasn’t it possible to find a solution without violating our personal rights to make the decision to go without health insurance (which I’ve personally done before) without being fined up to 2.5% of our income?
Wasn’t it possible to cut costs and make health insurance more affordable by cracking down on the existing Medicare / Medicaid fraud? (After all, if people have less opportunity to steal, insurance companies wouldn’t have to eat so much of a loss and they could lower premiums.)
Wasn’t it also possible to cut costs, not by pulling funding from the non-existent money in the social security piggy bank or taxing the people out the ears, but by increasing competition and allowing individuals to buy insurance across state borders?
The answer – to all of these questions – is yes.
Under the weight of these questions, however, Obama’s appeal to pity simply did not hold its own. It still doesn’t hold its own.
It is with these questions in mind that Obama and Congressional liberals need to realize that opponents of this bill are not denying the humanitarian travesty that exists when people cannot afford adequate health insurance coverage. We are challenging the Constitutional and fiscal travesty of a federal law that 1.) is beyond the Constitutional reach of the government, and 2.) passes into law against the direct will of the people, and does so thanks to back door deals and bribed votes and at the expense of our economy’s integrity.
After all, no one questions the fact that it is an absolute disgrace when people go hungry, go cold, or go without adequate health insurance coverage, especially in a country as prosperous as the United States. Shame on me as an individual if I do not do my part to help my community members in need – however, no government official has ANY authority to force their humanitarian causes on me under penalty of jail or fines if I fail to comply.
All the government is doing by deciding our health insurance is taking away our liberty to make our own health decisions. (Oh, and to fine us up to 2.5% of our income if we choose NOT to take the government policy? Yes, that’s directly unconstitutional as well.)
Think about it: Government can’t protect liberty by taking it away. It’s illogical – illogical AND unconstitutional.
So how about it, Congress? How about it, President Obama? Will you ever hold yourselves fiscally accountable and answer our questions or will you continue to invalidate our concerns with your smokescreen appeal to pity?
I’d venture a guess that we will continue to receive the latter response, however, it is interesting to watch our politicians in the meantime deny that the health insurance overhaul isn’t socialism…when inherently, it is. Universal government-sponsored and mandated health care IS socialistic, in that A.) it is a public, communal (government) ownership of the health care system, and B.) it distributes a commodity based on “fairness” and “equality” (i.e., wealth redistribution) rather than economic or market principles.
Economically speaking, government-mandated taxes toward humanitarian causes (wealth redistribution) actually are NOT charity, despite the common confusion by the two. Also economically speaking, government mandated taxes toward humanitarian causes ARE a disservice to the cause of humanitarian aid. In fact, it has been proven that for every $1 of government-spending toward a charitable cause, up to 50 cents in private giving is displaced (i.e., not spent on the charity).
Economists call this the crowding-out effect. In other words, the basic principle is that as government spending on charity increases, people privately give less to charitable causes. Exhibit A: FDR’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression. Government spending went from 0% to 4% of the GDP and church-based charity ALONE dropped by 30%.
Constitutionally speaking, it is beyond the federal government’s responsibility to force by law citizens to “shoulder” any humanitarian or charitable burden on its citizens. (Not to mention that it’s an oxymoron to claim that a government-mandated tax is “charitable.” Anything that is forced or required on someone else is no longer charity, even if it is for a good cause.)
I can’t help but wonder if Nancy Pelosi or President Obama has ever heard of the “Winterhilfswerk” – the Winter Aid. It was a “charity” program designed by the Nazi Party back around the 1930’s. Every year they collected ‘donations’ in the altruistic name of helping the needy, but if families didn’t contribute toward the cause, well…they would run into a bit of trouble with the local Nazi authority. In fact, the popular propaganda slogan used to promote this program was: “Keiner soll hungern! Keiner soll frieren!” (Translated to: No one should go hungry! No one shall be cold!)
Sound familiar to the appeal to pity currently employed by Congressional liberals?
There’s a slight shift that’s surfaced in the current health insurance debate that’s an interesting twist to these old German national socialist propaganda catch phrases: instead of openly advocating socialistic policies under the banner of human rights, the socialistic health insurance push is now subtly being advocated as an inalienable or natural right.
The problem with this argument is that inalienable rights are actually rights that are inherent to us: what we have. Inalienable rights are NOT what the government (or anyone) gives us. We have the right to life and liberty – the government cannot take these away. However, just because the government is obligated to make sure these rights are protected (again, for a government to take them away would be direct oppression), it does not follow to say that they can be GIVEN by the government.
Regardless, how has it become the common misconception that the U.S. government did not provide assistance (health care) for those in need prior to the passing of this health insurance bill? Has everyone honestly forgotten about two programs called Medicare and Medicaid?
Here’s a funny idea that Obama and Congress failed to address: the supposed 45 million uninsured. According to the 2007 U.S. Census, 21% of the 45 million uninsured Americans were illegal immigrants. Close to 40% of the uninsured 45 million had incomes exceeding $50,000 but simply chose not to enroll in an insurance policy (either as an individual or through an employer). Furthermore, according to the Urban Institute, 22% of the uninsured 45 million were eligible for Medicare / Medicaid, but they simply never signed up for a program. That means, the government, despite the fact that Medicare / Medicaid programs are specifically designed to assist various groups of people who can’t afford insurance, was willing to re-create the wheel and blow billions of dollars because people basically hadn’t filled out their name and address and licked a stamp to mail the form.
This left only about 2.7% of the 45 million uninsured who did not – could not – get a health insurance plan.
Let’s also not forget or confuse (as our politicians are so apt to do) that a health insurance plan is not the equivalent of health care. In other words, just because one does not have a health insurance policy, it does not mean they do not have health care – it just means their treatment costs will not be subsidized by an insurance company that they’ve been paying into.
The difference between health insurance and health care is a crucial distinction, because it is a far cry to claim that any percentage of our population cannot get health care, especially since by law, any sick John or Jane Doe steps who within 150’ of a hospital will receive treatment and care far superior to that around the world. (This is true regardless of a person’s citizenship in this country – a point well demonstrated in California, where hospital costs and insurance premiums skyrocket above the rest of the country’s rates, thanks heavily in part to the significant influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border in the hopes of receiving better care, receiving better care, and disappearing when it comes time to pay for the better care they received here than in their home country.)
Again, this is not denying the fact that the system still needed to be tweaked to include the 2.7% who are slipping through the cracks, but this certainly changes the game a bit, doesn’t it?
Suddenly, the immanent crisis looks a wee bit exaggerated, when we actually look at the facts. Suddenly, the billions and billions of dollars that will drag us into debt claiming to help one-sixth of the population seem a bit more like… overkill. Suddenly, the thousands of layoffs (and billions of dollars in losses) that companies are just starting to announce seem a bit more unnecessary.
Considering Medicare fraud has been estimated to be the cause of costing taxpayers about $60 billion every year, instead of reinventing the wheel and forcing an entire nation of 300 million citizens to switch to a new government plan, why didn’t our Congress even CONSIDER strengthening the amendments in False Claims Act (FCA), for example?
While we’re putting ideas on the table that, despite the massive government overhaul, did not get addressed, why didn’t insurance policies get put back in the hands of the consumer?
Why didn’t they even consider encouraging Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which have been shown to reduce fraud over standard insurance programs by up to 90%? HSA programs (health savings accounts) allow customers to pay the health care providers directly for the care received. This has a direct two-fold benefit: A.) people are more responsible when it’s their money they are writing checks for, and B.) it reduces fraud, and by extension, health insurance premiums.
Why is some obscure politician deciding what we do with our bodies?
Why didn’t they consider allowing states to increase insurance competition across state borders? Increased competition forces hospitals and insurance providers to lower costs and premiums, thus making insurance more affordable, so that seems like it should have been a given.
For that matter, why weren’t states allowed to have more control over the Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP / COBRA programs? The states will ALWAYS put their constituents’ money to better use than the federal government. In fact, return more control to the states in general. That has the potential to address wasteful spending in a plethora of fiscal areas.
After all is said and done, do we really think our federal government is competent enough to balance the Health Care checkbook?
No, we don’t, which is why we can’t help but legitimately wonder if now, when we see moths flying out of our nation’s Social Security piggy bank, when we’re told to turn our attention elsewhere while the government takes control of 20% of our economy, if this unconstitutional show of fiscal irresponsibility won’t bankrupt our economy.
After all, just think back to 1992, when House Members bounced 11,435 checks (from their own House bank)... are you concerned yet?
~Gee
