Posted by
ob_one on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:32:51 AM
The latest health care initiative proposed by the Democrats has neglected to cover some important topics that many in America cannot see in the shadow of the doom and gloom message of this current administration.
There have been numerous proposals and disagreements on how universal, socialized medicine shall be paid for. Let’s examine Canada's system. Back in the early years prior to all of the electronic wizardry and wonder drugs we experience in hospitals today, basic care involved more human interaction and less reliance on million dollar machinery and expensive pharmaceuticals. Fast forward to the 1990's. Technological, medical and pharmaceutical advances have exploded, thus raising the cost of health care radically. And as one could expect, our lifespans have increased. Canada's healthcare budget had to radically adapt. The money had to come from somewhere. Wage freezes on nurses and Doctors were causing a drain on the labor pool. Canada, being a member of NATO and having the
United States as a neighbor, pillaged it's military instead of reviewing costs of their generous social programs at the risk of losing liberal party votes. Sadly, while Canada now relies indirectly on it's superpower neighbor for protection, their healthcare system is still lacking in quality healthcare for all. General procedures such as hip replacement (my Grandmother waited a little over a year for hers) and cataract surgery (my Uncle had to wait a year and drive 120 miles from a town of 400,000 people to Toronto to have his procedure done) can take years to come to fruition in Canada, where in the United States these procedures can literally be done within weeks. Rationing will be the name of the game.
Here in Minnesota, I recently talked with some in the nursing profession and found many in disappointment that they have received no communication at all from the Minnesota Nurses Association to union members. When one links to MNA's website, the comments on Obama's healthcare initiative are links to the likes of the "Huffington Post", hardly objective sources. There was nothing regarding nurse’s rights and their eventual position as newly minted government employees. Hence the MNA and other bargaining units representing health care workers have been extremely vague on publicly citing their opinions. Of the health care workers I had talked with, and this included administration, lab technicians, nurses and doctors, I asked them if they were aware that their wages could be frozen and their right to strike likely would be non-existent. The replies were of shock. Ironically, the unions have forced themselves into a corner. Advocating "card check legislation" has forced them to support socialized medicine at the expense of current and future card carrying members. All the union sees is an increase in membership since it's quite obvious if more people access the system, more workers will be needed. And recently, the Congressional Budget Office has said the program will be too expensive, thus this will put downward pressure on wages. How many of the upcoming generations best and brightest will pursue a career in the medical field when there are more lucrative opportunities existing? Thus the United States, having unarguably the best medical care available in the world, (how many Americans go to Europe, Saudi Arabia or Canada for medical care?) will now have to lower it's standards to attract workers who previously would not have passed more stringent exams to gain their health care license. Hence, this would cripple high quality health care that we have become accustomed to.
Research and development will also surely take a hit, either in the machines that diagnose us to the pharmaceuticals that cure us. This will affect healthcare worldwide. How? The countries that have socialized medicine have for years not paid their fair share for such products, relying on the citizens of the United States instead to pay increased costs of drugs and machinery to cover the billions spent annually on these companies R and D costs. These countries put their own citizens hostage by telling vendors they will only pay so much for their products. Quite obviously the more a company produces, the less costs they bear to manufacture. So while a socialized country may pay for a name brand drug or machine, the costs to American consumers are increased because "we can afford it." The companies are in a catch-22. If they refuse to sell to the countries with national health care, they're labeled as inhumane. Hence the soaking of the American consumer. Socialized medicine will effectively stamp out companies R and D efforts as they will focus on mass production of existing products to cover costs and investors return on investment.
Interestingly enough, the silence from the legal profession has been deafening. Many in this country for years have argued for tort reform, thus lowering costs of insurance to practitioners by capping awards on lawsuits that many regard as frivolous. I am thoroughly amazed that no one in the legal profession has come out publicly against this healthcare initiative as it threatens trial lawyers incomes. Which would make me believe that buried somewhere in the one-thousand plus page health care proposal is language that allows to an extent the continued filing of these "ambulance chasing" lawsuits.
Lastly, the Obama administration has a penchant for mentioning the "45 million uninsured" in this country (as a note, this bill covers everyone, including the fifteen million plus in this country illegally). What they have never mentioned is there are 255 million insured. Of those insured, many benefit from the labor of their hard work. What is conveniently ignored is under Federal law, anyone showing up at a hospital must be treated. The hospital incurs the costs, submits the paperwork to the government for reimbursement, and on average is paid back 65-70% of their incurred costs. Thus the rest is picked up by those who are insured. Rather than running a wrecking ball through the insured's coverage, what has not been brought to light by this administration is why not fix the current system already in place? Medicaid and Medicare are broke and in a state of shambles. Additionally, many states, such as Minnesota, have legislation in place where a percentage of ones medical bill is taken by the state for it's own medical insurance system. In fact, Minnesota takes 2% right off the top of all medical and dental bills for MNCare. The fiscal year of 2007 saw MNCare end with a $32 million surplus. Where's the problem?
What's even more interesting is the lack of talk from the left regarding any reforms of healthcare, rather here's the bill, enjoy it. Conservatives have submitted numerous ideas of reform only to be shouted down or dismissed, as have countless talk radio hosts. Two reforms that would make a huge impact? Repeal the interstate commerce clause and allow insurance companies to openly compete with each other nationwide. Secondly, remove all mandates from insurance coverage and allow the individual to opt for the coverage he desires. Most states legislators have passed laws to have insurance companies cover the "feel good" issues, Like drug and alcohol counseling, HIV/AIDS coverage. Since I don't engage in drug abuse nor cheat on my wife, why should I have to pay for coverage that I am not at risk for?
In closing, fortunately many in this country are now seeing this proposed legislation for what it truly is. Nothing but a power grab to further entrench a Socialist ideology that will destroy a work ethic respected worldwide and further dim the light of freedom of our country.