Wednesday, July 1, 2009

You know it's a little bit dangerous...

(Roxette... 80's music baby)


Vanity that is... vanity that a group of people can believe, to the core that they know what's better for you than you do. Welcome to the ever so progressive world of soft despotism.

If you're as worried as I am about health care - you should be even more concerned now. Sure there needs to be change ... sure it isn't perfect - but the solution... NEVER is "uh, here, let's hand the reigns over to the government...yee haw."

I recently read this well written article by Paul Rahe, about the problem with Obama's proposed government sponsored heath care reform. I would hope that Americans... the bulk, who are not normally able to see through the hype, emotion and smooth talk - will wake up and fight against the destruction of our individual rights. I highly recommend the article and would hope you forward this on to all your family/friends.

Here are a few quotes from the article:

President Obama responded to a question by acknowledging that his plan aimed to reduce medical costs by aligning "incentives" in such a fashion as to discourage the sick and the dying from undergoing "additional tests" or taking "additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

Obama's choice of words was, as always, soothing. But anyone familiar with the healthcare debate will immediately recognize what he left unsaid. We all know that, wherever there is socialized medicine, there is rationing. Cutting costs is, in fact, its rationale, and this end is achieved by a refusal on the part of the government to pay for care that the bureaucrats judge uneconomic. Already now, in the semi-socialized system to which we have been made subject, those consigned to HMOs come up against gatekeepers charged with shaving costs by restricting care.


I REFUSE to pick HMO when we pick insurance. I REFUSE. I have seen too many friends on HMOs jump through the same tests to get treatments for the same issues. The amount of wasted time and energy to do this... is ridiculous. BUT it's an HMO so you're stuck following the red-tape. Kaiser is one example of crap health care - we call it "Kaiser, where people go to die". I love having a choice of a PPO so that I make the decisions on health care for me and my family. I have control. It is my life. It's my responsibility, period. Why would anyone want to give up that freedom... that individual right to happiness? Because let's face it - if you're unhealthy and in pain...chances are, you aren't happy.


Defenders of Obama's proposal will reply that I am misrepresenting his proposal. No one, they will say, will be forced to give up the health insurance they have. Technically, of course, this is true. But what President Obama calls the "incentives" will be structured in such a way that employers will no longer have to offer coverage, and to save themselves the expense (which is considerable), they will seize the opportunity to opt out, and then we will have no choice.

Here is where Obama's "incentives" reappear. The government-run insurance program will, for all practical purposes, be a monopsony--the sole purchaser. It will be in a bargaining position enabling it to dictate the price that it will pay, and, of course, it will pay very little. You, as an individual purchaser, will have no leverage at all; and, like those not covered by employer-sponsored insurance plans today, you will have to pay through the nose. Unless you are filthy rich, you may well have to wait your turn for that hip-replacement operation, forego that cataract operation, or do without those expensive tests and procedures. In sum, you will not be in the driver's seat.

"To take from one," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" It was on this foundation that Abraham Lincoln objected to slavery, and it is on this foundation that one can object to the health care reform proposed by our President. For this proposal is designed to take from those who have earned and to give to those who have not bothered to do so; and, by way of constraining "incentives," it will take from us the right to manage our own lives in a matter most dear to each and every one of us, and it will confer this responsibility on experts empowered to decide whether, given the cost of care, it is of greater value to society that we suffer or are cured, that we live or die.


How I miss the founding fathers. It is sad to me that in this day of runaway progressives - these great men would never have a chance to be elected.


It is easy enough to see why progressive doctrine should be attractive to our masters. Tyrannical ambition is nothing new, and throughout human history it has nearly always presented itself to men in the guise of idealism. We are all inclined to meddle in other people's business; we are all inclined to think that we know better; and higher education tends to inflate our vanity and to make us more inclined to lord it over those who are less well-instructed. Never for a moment does a Barack Obama stop to ask whether depriving us of responsibility for our own well-being is demeaning. He and his supporters know that they know better, and their putative wisdom in this regard constitutes for them an absolute claim to rule. The logic unfolding within the progressive impulse requires that there be a class of Guardians empowered to supervise our lives in every particular, and to an ever-increasing degree this is the reality with which we live.

Let's not just sit and take it in the rear - let's get up and SAY HELL NO!!! You will not destroy the fruits of my labor. You will not dictate how I live and when I die.

4 comments:

La Yen said...

The thing I always think of, and that everyone who is so excited about the prospect of gov't care seems to think I am stupid about, is that I don't understand how there will be MORE choice with soc. medicine.

In my mind, the medicine we get with the military is probably VERY close to what the government will end up doing--think about it: millions of people, all covered, no matter what. So what do they do? Run their own hospitals and clinics. Which are NOT good. Because, for the most part, private sector will pay more. So really talented doctors get out ASAP. Leaving us (mostly) the ones who are not the best. Combine that with denied procedures (based on cost, not on helpfulness--things like foot care, vision, and fertility)and incredibly long wait times, and then throw in the fact that each time a hospital gets a new commander everything changes--and it is not fabulous. How will this be different?

They all then say "NO! You will get to choose ANYONE you want!!" And fail to remember that insurance is expensive. And when the government cuts the billing amounts in half, the good doctors will realize that it is not worth it to practice medicine in the US. So I will be able to choose ANYONE--anyone who sucks or can see me in three years.

Queen Scarlett said...

I totally agree.

It's always under the "guise" of choice... what they mean is... yes, you get a choice of "the doctors that don't give a s--- about you, and like to cut LVAD wires...and drop things in your open wound and sew them up."

Thanks for bringing up the military hospitals... everyone I've known that have had coverage there HATES it... and finds work in the private sector to bypass the CRAP care there.

This whole bait and switch, smoke and mirrors about CHOICE... reminds me of a plan back in the premortal realm...but I can't seem to put my finger on it.... ;-)

nestle said...

There is more at stake than that. The doctors are already talking about going in together to buy an island or a location south where people can readily travel to to get healthcare. Why? Medicare and Medicaid pay the average doctor 81 cents on the dollar for every procedures done. Closer to home they pay anesthesiaologist (who my husband is working to become) is paid 31 cents on the dollar. That is why many doctors opt out of accepting medicare and madicaid and only take private insurance or cash. The reason why doctors have had to charge more is because of their malpractice insurance. People sue they for anything and everythign. Yes there are unfortunate cases of malpractice but in my father's case he was sued becasue a lady didn't believe her ear was to her liking on her 3rd yes 3rd plastic surgery on the same ear by 3 different doctors. But will the frivolous lawsuits which are raising the cost of health care be put in check absolutely not. Why? 1/3 of the congress on the democrat side are tort lawyers, meaning they earned their millions by trivially suing doctors.

The lastest form of all the health care bills on the table state that "doctors will mandatoriy have to participate" in public healthcare.
They WILL HAVE NO CHOICE. To make it even more insidious Obama in one of his executive orders repealed Bush's right to concience. Doctors under the Bush order were allowed to say "no I will not participate in an abortion" without fear of losing their right to practice at a hospital or to lose their jobs. Obama REPEALED THAT. The ground is set now that should a public health care pass and should a woman want an abortion and should a doctor refuse to participate in said abortion he/she can and as evidenced by the government's interference in the private sector and firing of a private CEO when they fired GM's CEO they can and most probably will fire any doctor or remove his priveledges to work should he/she refuse to participate in an abortion. EVEN IF IT IS AGAINST HIS RELIGION.

In doing this last year of residency K's worked at Grady Hospital in ATlanta. We have free healthcare should people choose to use it. You can go into any emergency room and be seen by a doctor. You don't even have to pay.

Queen Scarlett said...

In socialized medicine there's no incentive to do more... thanks for the perspective Nestle.

I read recently in one of the news articles that Obama has no intention of limiting malpractice.

I can't understand how anyone can look at this and say - "uh yeah, I want socialized medicine."

Obama is selling us a rotten bill of goods - as are most progressives. Ditto with the global warming - it's like they found their trendy topics and want to pursue them regardless of the truth.

Makes me sick.