Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 4)

If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.  Part 2, click here, and part 3 here.  For those that have already read through, please continue on below.  As stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.
 November 24, 2009 ·

Final Destination

The thing about national health care is that it's not even a new idea. Before Archduke Franz Ferdinand met his demise at the hands of Serbian terrorist Gavrilo Princip's bullet, there was talk of providing national health care, but the nation for the most part resisted it. All major government incarnations and attempts since then including medicare and social security, etc. have been an attempt to expand the scope of control that our government has over our lives.

In this moment that we currently live, democrats see an opportunity that they have dreamed about for generations to ram through "health care overhaul" at whatever the political cost. There are senators and congresspersons who are willing to lose their seats, because they understand the finality of this debate: if they are able to force through the government run health care takeover before anyone can stop them, they know that there will be no going back. If you don't believe me, go ahead, try and discuss social security reform and see how far that gets you.

The key aspect is that it is being proposed as "health care for all", but the problem with that stems from the fact that most Americans who are actual legal citizens of this country already are eligible for health care, whether they choose to participate or not mostly have the option of receiving health care. Some choose to not participate, but that is a personal decision (I for one choose to not have health insurance, though my company does make it available and foots the bill for approximate 60% of the cost of the policy), not something that government needs to involve itself in.

The other hook that has been pitched is that it will be "free" health care. Perhaps you had a grandmother like mine who advised that it is always right to assume that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. She was also fond of pointing out that there was no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, there is no such thing as free health care. Everything has a cost, and here our politicians are especially crafty. They rob from so many different groups and never intend to pay the money back, nor to use it for anything that really benefits our nation. It is simply a power grab, they do it because they can, and so that they can limit choices more than ever before.

Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has taken considerable flak ever since she went from political unknown to Senator John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate last year. Citizens should be thankful, however, for the fact that she stopped cold (temporarily, at least) the type of government control over end of life decisions that many of our European counterparts face.

Of course, what she did not do, nor has any other politician is to solve the issue of rationing of health care. Just this week there has been political trial balloons floated on pap smears and mammograms stating that they did not need to be done as often. On its face, this seems like an odd departure from what has been the standard operating procedure, which is to get tested early and often, to help prevent a possible life-threatening situation. If you are more cynical, you'll look for the sinister reason: less tests means less money spent, which means the politicians are that much closer to 'saving' the health care system without totally crippling our financial system (they will not actually save our health care system, and they will most definitely bankrupt our nation forever if they actually take over health care.)

For those of you who may think that the European socialistic system of medicine is the proper way to go about, I suggest you look into how long patients wait for routine and even specialized medical care. Another thought to consider is this: I have a friend who works for an international conglomerate, and some of his co-workers are located in England, one of the bastions for socialized medicine. Despite the enormous taxes that they pay for their "free" health care, these (and others that can afford it) take out separate private policies that guarantee that they will receive better care then there compatriots who have the public option only.

Which, to put it simply, means they have created a bigger system of haves and have nots then even we as Americans could conceive in the private market. Which means that the thought that our health care system will be improved is wrong. It will be decidedly worse for a majority of us (as a majority of us are not in the upper echelons of income earners), and those that are will have the same or better coverage, but will unfortunately pay more for the privilege. All so a couple of hundred politicians can publicly glad hand each other and pretend that they did the 'right' thing, while they meet in the back rooms to laugh at their citizenry, a citizenry that had the wool pulled over its eyes, and will now pay the cost for eternity. Or until the nation severs. Whichever comes first.

Other thoughts to not forget:

Senator Landieu (D-LA) "I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it"...

this is the extra money that Louisiana and only Louisiana will receive in the Health Care take over bill...(the actual endowment comes on page 432 of the 2000+ page bill)...

Barney Frank (D-MA) -there will be a public option, and it doesn't matter the size, because we will build on it going forward (and they will, as they have with every public program since the beginning of time.)

Consider also what our Shadow President said back in July that he would go over the bill with any Congressperson who requested it line by line (read about Congressman Phil Roe's attempt to schedule a meeting with President at this link.)

Myself, I'm siding with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who stated that there would be a "holy war" if the bill that is currently up for debate passes. He also noted that while the American public is being sold an $849 Billion bill, that will actually cost $2.5 Trillion (clever accounting figures are used, and the period of time that the figures are gathered from are 2014 - 2024. There is also a plethora of stealing going on, as noted above, including $400 Billion or so from Medicare, which will force even more seniors into the government option.)

So concludes, for now, this long, rambling, occasionally incoherent I'm sure, rant against the public health care option. The option we have right now may not be perfect (and in reality, nothing ever is), but it is better by such a large magnitude in comparison to what is being offered that there is not a realistic comparison that I can conceive. More ranting and raving at a future date, promise.