High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Health Care Plank by Jake Towne, 2010 Candidate for US Congress, PA-15
"A time came when the only people who had ever been free began to ask: 'What isfreedom?'"
- fromThe People's Pottage
Summary:
Our health care is simply too important to be left tobureaucrats in Washington, plus it is unconstitutional. I stronglydisapprove of the Democrats' Obamacare and also theincumbent Republican's "Medical Rights and Reform Act" asboth are simply matching strains of the same disease -socialized medicine. (1) (2) (3)
Beyond establishing a framework of laws and acts for acompetitive free market, running health care is simply not a dutyof the federal government, and is best left to individuals andprivatized insurance. While the federal government should doit's best to deliver the promised benefits from the current form of socialized medicine,Medicare, expanding this system is out of the question. Younger generations should be giventhe opportunity to opt out as Medicare's total unfunded liabilities were $85 trillion in 2008. (4)If elected, I will not enroll in Congress's elite health care plan. Citizens should be wary of politicians who plot to control their constituents' health care, but will not and do not enroll in itthemselves.
Why You Should Oppose Government-Run Health Care
Government-run health care, also known as socialized medicine, also called ObamaCare, isan unsustainable idea and is an erosion of personal freedom. Health care is much tooimportant to be run by the government. The services and products that are most abundantand affordable in America are those that are produced and exchanged in a free market.Health care is no different.People who are concerned with their freedom, the cost of health care, the availability of healthcare in their community, and the truth, should never allow the government to control any partof health care delivery.Here are some basic facts about health care. This is not wishful thinking or hopefulbureaucratic programming. Below is a list of references which go into more detail.
Rationing and Price Controls Result in Higher Costs and Less Care
With government-run health care, your health care will be as successful as Amtrak and asefficient and well-run as the U.S. Postal Service. Rationing and price controls will benecessary to make the system run. That results in less available care, fewer health careproviders, and higher costs, plain and simple. Government is already heavily involved in our health care delivery, which is why it is so expensive. We don't want to make it worsewith more Government. (5) (6) (photo
)
With government-run health care, the best health care available inthe world (ours!!) will be reduced to the level of a third-worldcountry's medical care. Why? Because in any socialized system for any commodity, rationing occurs. The available service must beapportioned, or "spread out," to cover everyone. And who will get todecide who gets priority for these services? Not you, not your health care provider, not your family, but some bureaucrat in theFederal Government. Who are the most likely to be rationed? If Europe is a model, then those who are unemployed or elderly arethe top targets.
More Coverage Does Not Equal More Health Care
The national socialist plan is advertised by the Obama administration as increasing health-insurance coverage for everyone, especially those who are presently uninsured. However,due to the basic economic laws of supply and demand, this does not guarantee increasedhealth care. "Coverage" does not necessarily mean that there will be a doctor or hospitalroom waiting for you when you need one. In fact, as mentioned above, when governmentfunds the "coverage" it is inevitable that there will be less health care and less access to it. (7)
The HMO Act of 1973
President Richard Nixon sold out the American people after he sponsored the HealthMaintenance Organization Act of 1973. Nixon was famously told that "all the incentives [of HMOs] are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more moneythey make and all the incentives run the right way." (8) (9) (photo
)The HMO Act of 1973 required employers with25 or more employees to offer federally certifiedoptions and mandated that only care could berendered by HMO doctors and other professionals who have agreed to treat patientsin accordance with the HMO's guidelines andrestrictions in exchange for a steady stream of customers. The businesses – but not individuals – could deduct the cost of health care premiumsfrom their taxes. (10)We should always keep in mind that the inefficient HMO structure did not arise out of the freemarket, but rather was forced into existence by the Nixon administration.Prior to HMOs, we did not have today's technology but our health care system wasunquestionably the best in the world. Our doctors and hospitals were the best, our patientswere treated with excellent and affordable care, and thousands of private charities providedhealth services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients per the Hippocratic oathand, when possible, curing them as quickly as possible, without the red tape and threat of
lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, andinsurance was only for major illnesses or accidents. This meant both doctors and patients hadan incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO, Medicare or other government programs. (11)
Health Care's Like a Box of Chocolates: The Candy Store Analogy
Imagine for a moment you own a candy store. You work hard tofind all the best suppliers and employees and to make your pricescompetitive so you can increase the size of your business andprofit.However, several people eat way too much chocolate and startgetting health problems. After several lawsuits, your candy store isfaced with two choices: either increase your prices, or go out of business. You choose to increase the cost of your chocolate.The government decides that you are overcharging people for chocolate. They decide that thebest thing to do, is to open a new candy store which will guarantee cheaper prices. Theylower their prices to an amount that is well under what you are now able to charge since yougot hit with all those lawsuits.Very shortly, most people decide to buy chocolate from the government-run candy storebecause it is cheaper. Whether someone sues the government store or not is immaterial; itwill not fail. A government-run business can go way past a state of bankruptcy and has nopotential of being beaten. It can keep prices down until it is the only option left. Then, with nocompetitor, they can carry any quality of chocolate they wish. If they want to balance their budget, they can simply offer a much lower quality of chocolate because they have nocompetition.In short, if anyone wants chocolate they are now stuck with only the government candy store,who has no reason or motive to provide quality chocolate.Is this healthy competition? No, this is a serious problem. We are not dealing with chocolate.We are dealing with people's lives. Once this system is in place, it will be nearly impossible todestroy the nationalized, socialized medicine program without hurting millions of Americans.Even worse is the fact that millions of Americans will be hurting more WITH it in place. This iswhat is called a "lose-lose" situation.The answer? Why not protect the candy stores from frivolous lawsuits in the first place? Whynot offer tax relief for those paying private health care premiums to encourage private healthcare? (photo
courtesy Andre Karwath license)
Health Care Is Not Exempt From The Laws of Economics
From the Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2005:
Add a Comment