Principles are the Missing Ingredient in the Health Care Debate

In a Guest Commentary in Sunday's Telegraph, Dr. James W. Squires lamented the failure of the 2009 Health Care “reform” effort due to a failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue free from language that he complained stifled discussion and debate.  He complained that a focus on the principles underlying the policy served only to end the policy discussion.

I would argue that the reason that the current Health Care bills passed by the House and Senate will never be reconciled is because we did not reach agreement on the principles upon which that policy would be built.

Imagine the discussion between two honest, principled people about what the Giants needed to do to reach the playoffs next year.  Without taking the time to agree upon the framework of that discussion what follows would be an incoherent, frustrated cross-talk which fails to find agreement.  One argues that the Giants need to work on their pitching and infield play and the other argues that they need to improve their secondary and pass rush.  Without an understanding of whether they were talking about the baseball Giants from San Francisco or the football Giants from New York, any attempts at collaboration and agreement of ideas would be frustratingly fruitless.

So it has been with the 2009 Health Care discussion.  We couldn’t have a meaningful, fruitful discussion about heath care reform without first agreeing on the core principles and morality upon which any policy would be built.

Every honest poll – and the recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts - shows that most Americans disapprove of the policy contained in the House and Senate health care bills.  For the sake of argument, even if we stipulate that the Democrat leadership is motivated only by the noble objectives that they share with the public, let’s agree that resistance to the current bills is not because of any disagreement with their noble goals. Let’s simply stipulate that we disagree with the means by which the bills would attempt (and ultimately fail) to achieve those noble goals because of the violation of the core principles held by most Americans.

One step that “reform” advocates could take to reduce the cross-talk would be to refrain from conflating the premise that most Americans are opposed to the current policy being negotiated with the conclusion that most Americans are against true health care reform.

The reason most Americans reject the current bills in the House and Senate is an unacceptable infringement upon our personal freedom.  “Freedom” is not an “incantation” designed to stifle discussion as Dr. Squires mentions in his commentary.  Quite the contrary.  Reasoned Americans seek to understand how any policy will impact their freedom. The problem the Democrat leadership has created with its 2009 Health Care “reform” is that it has not paid sufficient regard to the concern that most Americans feel regarding the risk to their freedom inherent in these bills.

Most Americans understand that the only power in the world that can strip Americans of their freedom is government.  For a people to enjoy hundreds of years of freedom as we have in America is a historical anomaly – an aberration in the normal march of human history.  Generations of Americans have willingly risked their lives and livelihoods to secure their freedom and the freedom of the next generation.  Most Americans view the policy contained in the two health care bills to be an unacceptable risk to that precious freedom.  Voters of all political leanings sent this message last Tuesday in Massachusetts.  They felt their cherished principle of freedom was under attack by the current health care bills.

We have seen the enormous capacity of Americans to solve any problem when we work together.  Health Care reform should be no different.  President Obama and the Democrat leadership can find their place in the annals of history by making a substantive, sustainable improvement to our Health Care system, but they must first spell-out the principles upon which this policy would be built such as:

•    The government has no moral authority to compel any American to buy an insurance policy involuntarily and with costly provisions he does not want.  The current bills would mandate all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine.

•    The government has no moral authority to intercede in a private, voluntary exchange of values between a patient and a doctor by limiting the amount the doctor may receive for providing a service to a patient.  The current bills would limit the amount that doctors and hospitals could receive for a given service.

•    The government has no moral authority to coerce young people to pay a higher insurance premium based on their lower-risk profile in order to subsidize the insurance cost of older people who are higher users of health care.  In order to gain the buy-in from insurance companies to provide insurance to people who have pre-existing conditions, the government promised to coerce every American to buy health insurance.

•    The government has no moral authority to tell any business, such as a health insurance company, with whom it must do business.  The current bills would require health insurance companies to issue policies to risks that would reasonably guarantee that the health insurance companies would lose money.

•    The free market, if unfettered by destructive government mandates, mis-incentives and other distortions, is better able to provide health care better than a government-run system.  The free market has shown that it is the best vehicle for increasing the availability and quality of products and services while reducing the cost to the consumer.  The fact that it hasn’t (yet) been used in the health care industry is due solely to government barriers.

•    Providing health care insurance is not the same as providing health care service.  Health care service is a product that must first be produced before it can be delivered.  A government-issued “coupon” for “universal foot protection”, for example,  does not, by itself, produce a single pair of shoes. Similarly, a government-sponsored “coupon” for health insurance does not produce health care service. 

•    If you pay doctors and hospitals less than it costs them to provide the service, you will have fewer doctors and hospitals providing that service. Setting a price-cap that each person who has a “universal foot protection” coupon must pay for a pair of shoes will not increase the number of shoes manufactured. Quite the contrary.  Price-controls will, theoretically and in historical practice, reduce the amount of a good or service whose price is artificially controlled.

•    If you have fewer doctors and hospitals producing health care service and we provide “free health care coupons” to every American, either costs will go up or delivery delays will be experienced and / or both.

If the Democrat leadership or any health care “reform” advocate could please address these reasoned and reasonable concerns, then we promise not to mention the corrupt methods (Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, $60 billion union buy-off, no CSPAN, etc) by which these unprincipled bills have been crammed down our throats.

We are concerned by the over-reach of Democrats in this health care debate because of the violation to our principles this policy represents.  We are concerned that the Democratic leadership is indifferent to the core principles of Americans and that “might makes right”.  In Oct 2008, Hillary Clinton sent an email to her supporters that said, “Sixty is the magic number.  If we reach 60 Democrats in the Senate, then the days of Republican obstruction are over…there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.” Chilling.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.  Do not count on them.  Leave them alone.”  Principled, independent Americans wish to have a reasoned discussion about health care policy with the leadership in Washington.  We are asking for a discussion based on objective reason.  We ask that they respect our principles and do not dismiss our concerns as those of unhelpful obstructionists.  A reasoned, principled policy will stand on its own merits and its virtues will be easy to discern and discuss.  A reasoned, principled policy will “sell-itself” when presented in the disinfecting light of day to reasonable Americans.  Expensive buy-offs of critical votes, as we have witnessed, would not be required if the bills aligned with the principles of Americans.  Americans will support any policy that they think will benefit them.  Let’s have that dialogue.

Contact Key Senators to Vote "No" on Reid's Health Care Bill

There is still time...but not much... to remind key Senate Democrats that the will of the People should trump the corruption and deal making that history will characterize this awful bill.

Please take 10 minutes and contact these key Senators.  Do not provide your consent by remaining silent.  Let the John Galt within all of us find his voice.



Some other "must reading":

The Price of 'History'  Harry Reid delivers a bundle od special-interest favors
Harry Reid Turns Insurance Into a Public Utility, by Richard Epsteir

A "Right" To Health Care

Saturday December 19th, 2009 could someday be regarded as one of the most profound inflection points in American history.  Against a back-drop of an equally larger-than-life blizzard, the Senate Liberals basked in the hubris of the moment as the risk of a filibuster against the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) evaporated with the purchase of Senator Ben Nelson's consent.

The Rushmorian cabal of Reid, Dodd, Baucus and Harkins took to the microphone and started telling the history that they have so craved to read.  The comments by Christopher Dodd were particularly illustrative: "Today, we stand ready to pass into law a bill that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for the fortunate few."



Senator Dodd has redefined the definition of a "right".

Thomas Jefferson and our Founders recognized rights as "unalienable".  Rights can not be taken away or given away by the possessor of those rights. Rights are NOT privileges that the government bestows upon the People.  However, Senator Dodd states that the health care legislation that the Senate is cramming down the throats of Americans, against the will of most Americans, bestows a "right" upon Americans that were not there before.

Senator Dodd believes that he and his Senate colleagues have created "rights" for Americans.  Given that our Declaration of Independence stated that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", how does Senator Dodd reconcile his belief as to the origin of rights with that of our Founders?


In his 1954 book, The Income Tax:  The Root of all Evil, Frank Chodorov wrote, "The axiom of socialism is that the individual has no inherent rights. The privileges and prerogatives that the individual enjoys are grants from society, acting through its management committee, the government. That is the condition the individual must accept for the benefit of being a member of society. Hence, the socialists (including many who do not so name themselves) reject the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century"

Given that the Liberal Senator from Connecticut presumes to be providing Americans a new "right" and that a "right", according to Jefferson, is endowed by one's Creator, what conclusion might one reasonably reach regarding Senator Dodd's opinion of himself?  Correct! He and his colleagues are on the same plane as our Creator... or that "rights" are to be bestowed by government upon the people (and not the other way around, as the Founders intended).

The madness of Dodd's assertion that the cost  to recover one's health is to be borne by another is a "right" is furthered by an understanding as to why our Founders documented the Bill of Rights.  Every right listed in the Bill of Rights was a defense of individual freedom against the abuse of power by the government.  Senator Dodd would have us believe that rogue health insurers are the villains in this story - a classic example of cynical projection.  The only risk to any person's freedom is the government. Our Founders had a much healthier fear of the risk to our freedoms by government than do Americans of the 21st century.  This is unfortunate and dangerous.

A "right" is not and never has been a legal claim on another person...until Senator Dodd so ordained it.  Senator Dodd says, "This bill frees Americans from the fear that if they lose their job, they’ll never find insurance coverage again. This bill frees Americans from the fear that if they get sick they won’t be able to afford the treatment they need. This bill frees Americans from the fear that one illness, one accident, could cost them everything – their home, their life savings, everything."

What he means is, Americans now have a right to claim the product / service produced by other Americans ...as much as often as one wants...regardless of the decisions that one makes that influence the cost of that product / service...and to have somebody else pay for it.  Dodd has redefined a "right" as a claim on another human being.

In this Dodd model, two people have their inalienable right to their pursuit of happiness impaired - the health care provider who will be paid less for his / her services than a free market would allow and the taxpayer who will now need to pay not for not only his / her own health insurance but for the health insurance  of someone who now has a "right" to it.  Upon what moral principle does Dodd make this unconscionable assertion?

None.  There is no moral principle underpinning the assertion by Senator Dodd that any human being has a right, enforceable by the unrestrained power of the government, to put a claim on the services of another.  Such a condition is rightfully to be regarded as the 21st century version of slavery.  Already, those of us who actually pay Federal Income taxes (a shrinking minority) labor until April - May of each year just in order to pay the menu of taxes thrust upon us.  With this new "right" we will work longer and longer into the year before we can claim that which we have earned.

It is illustrative to re-read the short essay by William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, which was the basis of Amity Shales' best seller of the same name.

• The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. 
• For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights. 
• They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. 
• They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion - that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.

It is tragic that bad things happen to good people every single day in the world.  People lose their job, then their health insurance, then a medical calamity befalls them and they are ruined.  What heartless villian would stand in the way of remedying such a condition?

The fact is, at its root, this scenario is possible only because of the over-reach of government into our lives. Rationale people, operating in a free market, would never face the kind of disasters highlighted by the Democrats as the reason for further over-reach of the government. The intentions of government officials are often good, but government is utterly incapable of righting the ills of the world without creating greater ills by so doing.  Government has never understood the Law of Unintended Consequences.

• Why is health insurance tied to one's job?  Government policy dating back to WWII.  
• Why are health insurance premiums so expensive?  Because the government forbids the sale of health insurance across state lines and demands "cadillac" plans regardless of what the insured wishes to buy.  
• Why do doctors run so many tests that are now vilified by the Left as 'wasteful'?  Because doctors are afraid of being sued, due to inadequate tort laws.

The root of our health care problems in this nation IS the government.

Once we accept that "rights" are privileges to be bestowed by our public servants upon those whom our servants favor, then there is no limit to the risk to our freedom.


Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1BJMmRpsuY&feature=player_embedded
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0066211700
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0696e.asp
http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/is-employer-based-health-insurance-worth-saving/

Nelson sells-out writ large

Just when Americans thought the political corruption attending the power grab by radical liberals, enabled by their useful idiots, could not become more blatant and offensive to our Founding principles following the Louisiana Purchase of Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Harry Reid showed yesterday that there is no limit to the fraud that liberals will perpetrate to seize and hold power.

Reid bought off Senator Landrieu with a $300 million bribe on November 20th, enabling the Senate health care bill to stay alive.  Yesterday, he bought off, writ large, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), in, perhaps, the most blatant and transparent display of public bribery.

Senator Nelson had made a presumably principled-stand against the liberal bill by refusing to provide his consent to a bill that provided federal funding for abortion.  Given his previous position in the highly-charged abortion issue, on the surface, this push-back appeared reasonable.  Unless the language in the bill was strengthened to prohibit federal funding for abortion, Senator Reid would not get the 60th vote he needed for cloture from Senator Nelson.  Or so the narrative read...

In reality, what was really happening was classic back-room corruption but on a level never seen before.  Harry Reid bought off Senator Nelson’s vote, not with the stronger language against federal funding of abortion that Senator Nelson claimed as the foundation of his principled opposition, but with a Medicaid bribe for the state of Nebraska that makes the $300 million bribery of Senator Landrieu look small-time.  In return for his nod, Senator Nelson will have taxpayers in every other state pay Nebraska's share of Medicaid expenses... forever. 

What makes the bribery of Senator Nelson so transparent is that the language regarding federal funding in the most recent bill is weaker than before Nelson made his “principled” stand.  The hypocrisy and vile corruption is so utterly transparent.



As House Minority Leader Boehner writes in a 12/19 posting,
"...the Senate democrats' health care bill would require a monthly abortion fee paid by all tax-paying Americans. "... there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services.  The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).
In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.

President Obama has promised transparency.  We have it.  President Obama has promised that the Health Care reform he has pushed will not raise taxes on the middle class or increase the deficit by "one dime".  He is correct,  It will raise taxes on the middle class and increase the deficit by a gazillion dimes.

President's Weekly Address (10/3/09) - Health Care and its Impact on Job Creation

President Obama's weekly address to the nation today focused on creating the link between reducing health care cost and growing jobs in small businesses.

"I hear about it from small business owners who want to grow their companies and hire more people, but they can't, because they can barely afford to insure the employees they have."

If this is the problem - that is, it's costing too much for small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees - then is not the solution the de-linking of health insurance from the employment process? I don't buy my auto insurance from my employer so why should I continue buying my health insurance from my employer? Why doesn't President Obama and the Democrat leadership come out and say, "Effective Jan 1, 2012, all tax breaks to companies based on the cost to ensure their employees will expire; States are forbidden to add any mandates to health insurance policies that infringe upon every American's right to buy the right health insurance, across all state lines, in accordance with Article I Section 8; Meaningful tort reform will be enacted."

Imagine that glorious day when we are unfettered in our ability to buy the health insurance that is right for each of us; to take it with us as we change jobs; to be an active participant in the market-based process for reducing cost; for seeing billions and billions of our tax dollars returned to us as we shrink the Health and Human Services department; when we realize that we are free, in this one important part of our lives, from the meddling and corruption of government; when we taste freedom again.

Unless WE THE PEOPLE demand the de-linking of health insurance from the terms of employment we will never get this millstone of rising health costs from around our necks. However, liberal democrats don't want to touch the third rail of employer-provided health care because union members typically have the best health insurance in the country.

Employers don't want to lose this tax break because more of the compensation they provide to their employees will be in direct pay as opposed to indirect health care (fringe) benefits. Because future pension payments at many companies are based on direct compensation, businesses would face higher pension costs if they were forced to stop providing tax-deductible health insurance to their employees. Also, businesses know that employees are willing to suffer more in a dead-end job that has health insurance than make the jump to a new venture that may not have health insurance. In this way, many people feel trapped in their current jobs and employers would just as soon not see a higher turn-over rate at their companies.

So, who wins if we move to transportable, individual-purchased, "right sized", boundary-less health insurance? Well, WE THE PEOPLE, do.

We will get government out of our lives; we will be able to buy a policy that fits where we are in our lives; we won't be chained to a dead-end job for fear of losing our health insurance; we will eliminate a raging river of corruption by getting government bureaucrats out of the health care delivery system; we will regain our sovereignty.

Below is the letter I wrote to President Obama asking him to consider an alternative solution to the problems he discussed in this week's address:

Dear President Obama,

I listened to your weekly address today (10/3) and share your concern about the impact of rising health insurance cost to the prime generator of jobs in this country - our small businesses.

The solution to the problems that you so clearly articulated is right before us, if we are willing to compromise with a spirit of civility and seriousness of purpose.

If the cost to small businesses is too high to ensure their employees' health, then de-link health insurance from business and make the purchase of health insurance similar to the purchase of auto insurance or home owners insurance.

Eliminate all federal laws that give business tax breaks to ensure their employees and establish, instead, an environment in which all Americans can buy the health insurance policy that is best for them.

Encourage Congress to employee the Commerce clause to rid the process of purchasing health insurance by individuals of cost-driving mandates that vary state-by-state. Just as our Founders recognized the benefits of having interstate commerce unfettered by the whims of the several States, we see clearly that the local mandates have made the purchase of health insurance far more difficult and costly than it needs to be.

Establish an environment in which a young, healthy American is not required to pay for ridiculous coverage that he /she does not want. Establish an environment in which a person’s health insurance is as transportable as their auto insurance as people change jobs and pursue their entrepreneurial dreams. Create an environment in which small businesses can focus on growing their business and not shopping for health insurance in the arcane labyrinth that our government has created with simple health insurance.

This vision can be realized and your place in history as one of our greatest presidents can be guaranteed if only you see this obvious solution - to de-link health insurance from businesses - and act with the boldness and passion that is within you. De-linking health insurance from business, implementing meaningful tort reform and creating a safety net for those among us who can’t pay for the maintenance of their own health – simple acts, really, will guarantee you re-election in 2012.

Allow Americans the choice - without government mandates or even "nudges" - and marvel at our ability to create wealth for the benefit of all Americans. However, should you cling to the notion that a bigger government involvement in health insurance will unleash America's great capacity, then you are, respectfully, quite mistaken and the damage in Nov 2010 and Nov 2012 will be monumental. I fear you will be regarded by history as the victim of the tyranny of circumstances.

We have given you the power to lead America, but not to ruin us. Please, reflect on my words in the civil manner in which they are presented. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards -

Craig Powers
Hudson, New Hampshire

PS – Thomas Jefferson suffered the same “tyranny of circumstances” that you face now. He rose to the challenges of the office, set aside the bitter acrimony of the partisanship that characterized the election of 1800, and laid the foundation of America’s future greatness. Please, President Obama, put aside the partisan jabs at those of us who see a different solution to our common problem and listen to us as you have asked us to listen to you.

So, do YOU know what's in H.R. 3200?

No wonder Obama is apoplectic these days.

The day after our Orator-in-Chief took to the teleprompter to address America in prime time, presumably to convince Americans, with the use of nothing more than broad-brush, campaign-stump, class-warfare-based generalities, that we NEED to push forward his radical change to our health care delivery system, the Senate Majority leader announced that the Senate would not vote on a health care bill prior to the August Congressional recess, the arbitrary date set by Obama.

The coalition of House Blue Dog Democrats, not Republicans, is standing in the way of Pelosi's effort to cram through H.R. 3200 before the break. Democrats standing in the way of Democrats. Republicans are saying, "So you don't want our help crafting an acceptable bill? OK, then put your idea to a vote. Democrats own a 79 seat advantage in the House, right?"

Advertised as one of three-pillars (Education, Energy and Health Care) of his liberal agenda, reducing the cost of health care was a "must win" for the Obamaniacs. Unfortunately for the liberals, when the non-Kool-Aid drinking adult supervision of the CBO was asked to report to the American people what the cost impact of H.R. 3200 would be, well, let's just say the result was a little deflating for Team Socialism.



As Peggy Noonan stated in her "Common Sense May Sink Obama Care" piece in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, "Resistance to the Democrat health-care plans is in the air, showing up more on YouTube than in the polls, but it will be in the polls soon enough." Obama cares mightily about his polls numbers...no wonder he's cramming every piece of the Liberal agenda from the last 30 years through Congress during his honey-moon period. When his numbers at the polls begin to tank (which is already happening) his political capital will vaporize before his eyes.

Supposedly our post-racial President is anything but that and he knows this week that he is being called on that claim by the American people. During the press conference on Wednesday, Obama stated, "Well, I should say at the outset that 'Skip' Gates is a friend so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts....Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly...number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionally." The fall-out has been deliciously direct and unambiguous from the American people. We're not buying it the racial BS. When the audio tapes are released showing how disrespectful and disruptive Mr. Gates was to the public servants who were trying to do nothing but protect him and his property, Obama's comments are going to be seen as those of a complete racist jack-ass, the "beer-summit" notwithstanding.

So. now, Our Blessed Leader finds himself with a terrible Health Care Bill found in the toxic waste dump called H.R. 3200 and everyday common Americans (unlike Congressmen) are putting aside the other demands of the day to read this awful and dangerous bill to measure the chains that we will all wear should this bill be passed site-unseen (like the $787 billion second stimulus package in February)

If you view this bill on OpenCongress, you'll see the bill has been viewed 18,995 times (and counting fast) with 90% of people "casting a vote" on this bill voting "thumbs down". The message here is that people who take the time to read the bill hate it. But this is as we would expect. Liberals view the world as they would have it and don't bother reading the bill. Conservatives view the world as it is and pore over ever word. Liberals cannot be bothered with details when they prefer platitudes. Conservatives view ANY 1,017 page bill as a potential risk to our freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what can you find in this bill?

While tort reform is soooo desperately needed, if the goal is, truly, to drive cost out of the health care delivery system, the words "tort" and "lawyer" appear nowhere in the 1,017 page bill. In fact, the word "malpractice" appears as often (once - page 263) as does the phrase "mentally retarded" (page 389). [Note: The term "mentally retarded" has not been in used in serious health care discussion in a generation. Care to guess how old the working papers are from which the monstrosity called H.R. 3200 are?]

The word "minority" appears on 11 different pages, like on pages 883 - 884, where we read "In awarding grants and contracts... the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training...individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds..." Yup. H.R. 3200 perpetuates the picking and choosing of winners and losers based on race.

The words "insure" or "insurance" appear on 146 pages. Under Title I "Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefits Plans" (starts on page 14), we read "On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved..." On page 19 we read, "A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status related factors..."

So, if you like the health care package you have, then you can keep it? Right? Wrong. If your current health care package doesn't meet the new standards to be set by H.R. 3200 then that policy will no longer be adequate. The government will continue to ratchet-up the requirements for private health insurance coverage so as to drive private health insurance from the market. Furthermore, the price that a health care insurer charges for premiums must be the same for a 40-year old, overweight, smoker and drinker as it is for a 25 year old healthy person. On its face, does this make sense? Who do you think picks up the difference? The government's moral standard here is to punish people who make good decisions about their health.

The word "regulation" appears on 71 pages. For example, on page 651 we read, "Effective on January 1, 20011...the provisions of this section shall preempt any law or regulation of a State..."

The words "freedom" and "liberty" appear nowhere in the bill.

On page 936, we read "The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall establish a permanent task force to be known as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services". Among the far reaching power of this unelected Task Force include "review the scientific evidence related to the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of clinical preventative services identified...for the purpose of developing, updating, publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of such services."

Among the many chilling aspects of this Bill, the creation of this Task Force, scares me the most. Our personal health history information will be shared with the government through this board and this data will serve as the Potemkin village when the government implements its utilitarian, eugenics-based policy of "cost reduction".

Not surprisingly, the word "abortion" appears on no page of H.R. 3200. However, just as the U.S. Constitution never mentioned the word "slavery", the context of H.R. 3200 is as supportive of abortion as the Constitution was of slavery while neither ever mentions the unspeakable by name. The National Right to Life, in a piece published July 16, 2009, states:

1. H.R. 3200 will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health plans.
2. Abortion advocacy groups and Barack Obama view "basic" health care as including abortion, and the health care reform bill as the vehicle for expanding access to abortion.

---------------------------------
Summary:

1. H.R. 3200 is a terrible bill based on a moral standard offensive to most Americans.
2. Health care is a commodity that first needs to be produced and then delivered. H.R. 3200 pre-supposes an adequate supply of this commodity, though it presumably increases the demand for this commodity by 18% (47 million increase on a base of 253 million people currently covered). Rather than stimulating the creation of this commodity, H.R. 3200, by its overt policy of price-fixing and service refusal, will reduce the quantity of this commodity as current and future doctors and nurses remove their consent to this extortion by exiting the field, refusing to provide care in exchange for anything but cash, or never entering the field to begin with.
3. "Universal healthcare coverage" does not create access to healthcare as the Liberals would have you believe. Think of the lines at the most popular rides at an amusement park. What would happen to those lines if the amusement park did not charge an admission fee? Now, to add to the analogy, what if the park reduced the time that the ride was operating, to simulate the reduction in the number of qualified doctors and nurses that government-mandated price-fixing will create, by shutting down the ride for 10 minutes every hour? The only way to reduce lines, given the premise of universal access (i.e no admission price to get into the park) is either to deny access to the ride (only people between the ages of 20 and 40 can ride) , reduce the quality of the service (shorten the ride) or ban the ride entirely. Common sense shows that for the reasons universal access doesn't work in amusement parks it won't work in health care.
   
4. The government will, under the Trojan Horse of "efficiency", have an unprecedented access to personal medical history of all Americans with or without their permission. Nowhere in the Constitution is such power granted. A law requiring the mandatory disclosure of private medical information to the US Government is inconsistent with the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8. As such, H.R. 3200 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by Congress, the President and / or the Supreme Court.
5. Our taxpayers will be required to fund abortions, a condition that is morally unacceptable to a large percentage of Americans. This element of H.R 3200 is so offensive and unforgivable to such a large percentage of voters, that when this aspect of the bill is picked-up in the media and in town halls across the country, every representative voting for this bill will be thrown-out of office in 2010.
   

H.R.3200 "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 " (Yea, right)

For those of you looking for a summer thriller, I encourage you to grab your favorite beach chair, some SP30, a case of Bud and the 1,017 pages of H.R. 3200 which drew its first breath on 7/14/2009 and will hopefully expire before the only permanent damage done is to Obama and his thugs.

Call your Congressman today and tell him / her that, while we need to make some improvements to our health insurance system - improvements that provide less government involvement and more free choice - H.R. 3200 will be the most destructive policy ever enacted in the history of this country...and those that vote for its passage will face a hurricane of opposition in the 2010 elections. It will be an "eye for an aye" in no uncertain terms. Americans from across the country will organize and act and throw-out every representative who chooses to do the bidding of Obama and Pelosi rather than that of the men and woman who sent them to Washington to serve them.

This weekend we will break down Obama's press conference from 7/22 into a "What he said" and "What he meant" analysis... should be fun!

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln