Sunday, July 13, 2014
The Biggest Lies About Proposed National Health Care..These Lies Are Just Not Big Enough Yet To Make It Work.
The Biggest Lies About Proposed National Health Care Lex Loeb Contributor Network . Ronald Reagan is remembered for saying that government is the problem and not the solution. That is something to consider in the present day debate over expanding national health care coverage. One thing that is all but lost in the discussion about health care and who will provide it , pay for it, and decide who gets what care is the strange phenomenon that Medical care is about 25% of productive economy of the country. If you Live in Boston, Mass General hospital is the largest employer in the City. In Portland Oregon , The two largest hospitals are amoung the top 3 or 4 employers in the entire metropolitan area. The medical industry in the USA is huge. It may employ, directly and indirectly more people than anyother industry other than all the industries that make and keep cars on the roads. I guess a lot of people don't like the idea of medical care and health related industry being such a big part of our national economy that they want to limit services and prevent open competition with a grand plan for government intervention at every level of the industry. The interesting thing that is lost is that , save some public hospitals and medicare, medicade services, that the health care industry pays a huge chunk of the total taxes that state , local and federal governments budget. If we are talking about an industry that employs 25% of the workers directly or indirectly than why is it so bad? There are a lot of different things we could spend our money on as an alternative. We already spend a sufficient amount of money on food, shelter, clothing, entertainment and transportation but when it comes to medical care it is supposed to be free of charge. Someone else is supposed to cover you. It is really strange how illogical the govenment planners and democratic congress people are in defining the need for nationalizing health care incrementally or on a vast wholesale basis. Why is it illogical? Because if the government saves money by paying out less to fund health care then it will collect less taxes from the huge industry. Living in Democratic party controlled Portland, Oregon, I know for a fact that democrats know the virtues of limiting taxes on industries that they believe should have tax advantages to create incentives . In portland everyone pays more taxes so tax advantaged high rise condo can be built in the pearl district which used to be rail road track yards. The idea worked. 100s of new condomineum and apartment high rises got built with favorable tax treatment offered to developers and the ultimate buyers and renters of the condos. It worked except the system was not designed to create low cost housing but just to create an artificial zone of unnecessary high density because it supposedly helps save the environment. The truth maybe otherwise since it turns out that high rise building can consume more electric power than suburan homes do. Nevertheless the tax advantages did help cause a massive redevelopment to occur on land that once was a railroad yard. So why are'nt all the big democrats in congress and in Oregon calling for tax advantages for medicine and health care instead of their big national take over? It is a cause for great suspicion. Ever notice how in public schools, the schools spend more time teaching social values and political correctness than basic studies? Could government actually have ulterior motives? We know we can get lower health care costs immediately by cutting taxes on one of the largest industries in the country that also happens to be a necessity. State sales taxes exempt necessities but when it comes to doctors and private hospitals they need to pay full taxes at esculating rates or be put on government salaries! That is a little crazy. No one in the major media, not even on fox tv , calls medical health care insurance what it really is. It is not insurance but really a form of group prepaid medical care. The government advertises that it wants to provide health care insurance in competition but that is a blatent lie. They know it's not insurance and what they are offering is cradel to grave social life and death planning with cost consciousness that is not part of the existing medical system. Few people are talking about the fact that doctors and hospitals try to avoid taking in medicare and medicade patients because already with the massive programs we already have, medicare and medicade refuse to compensate doctors and hospitals for the full cost of the services and supplies rendered. It is a fact that government already uses lower than cost payments so one would have to wonder if it might not get a lot worse once they take over the entire medical system or rather turn the present day medical health care industry into an agency. No one in congress is smart enough to figure out why drug companies over charge for their big block buster new drugs. They do have significant Reasearch and Development expenses, legal expenses including insurance costs if anything goes wrong and the tort lawyers arrive on their doorstep, and they actually have to borrow money from investors and banks to go though the process of getting patents and testing the propsective products. Then almost immediately after they finally get a product on the market the patent is about to expire. The drug companies hype the cost of their best new drugs for all these reasons and to help fund future Rearch and development. Congress sets patent law and clearly durg companies patents don't last long enough for companeis to re-coup their expenses for a long enough profitable period of time. You never hear of anyone in congress offering durg companies tax free sales right so they can reduce costs nor do you hear anyone in congress talking about extending patents in exchange for setting lower prices. This is fishy. Drug expenses in the health care system we have are a fairly large component of the cost. So why is government more concerned about tax breaks for real estate land lords then they are for drug companies or doctors? We see the president and congresmen telling us all what a crisis we have and how much we need all their big plans to turn a huge profitable part of the nation's industry into an agency of the federal government and states and at the same time they want our taxes to go up when they plan on gutting the industry that pays a lot of those taxes. It makes no mathmatic sense. We know for a fact that there are more MRI machines and Cat Scan machines in Milwaukee Wisconsin or Minesotta than in all of Canada and the poor canadians have to wait in line for ever to get a scan. Fiends of mine get them almost everytime they go to the hospital righ off the bat here. Why do we want limitations and not tax advantages and more competition to provide even more of these great machines. How many of the machines in use in the USA were paid for by medicare and medicade? They under pay doctors and hopitals for costs and when i get my hospital bill as a private patient they tack their medicare losses on to my bill. Things don't always look the same if you have a different perspective or a different point of view. Some poeple see the war going badly in Afganistan as the natural consequnce of failed policies and that is true but not necesarily the policies that people are led to believe. Long ago in the afgan war campaign the US should have become the monopoly broker for all of the Opium in the country and that would have put out of business all of the war lords. Opium is necessariliy a bad thing but by effecively raising the price the US did everything that was counter productive to win the war and the peace. The demand for heroin world wide is as inelastic as any thing gets in the theory of economics. If the US just flooded the market with opium the gang and warlord competition would just disappear from the face of the earth. Exactly the opposite of what was promised with the anti opium campaign is what happened. The same dynamics are in play with the health care debate. It does not mater how alturistic the govenrment plans sound, if they are not cutting taxes and expenses for the system the costs can't go down. If they promise that a commission will solve all the problems it will likely make everything worse. The commission will make all of its own rules regardless if the act of congress establsihing it is 1000 pages or 20000 pages. once the rule making begins by the comission for something as big as the whole heath care system, directly and indirectly, it will balloon to thousand of phone book thick books of statues, court decisions and a rules before we know it. This is the reality of how governmnent works when a commission and agency takes over. The law congress wants to pass is just to get their foot in the door and then let the monster seed grow and it will grow and it will be acountable to no one. The democrats are selling it to the american people as an entitlement because they know that once people see it as an entitlement they won't ever want to part with it even if it causes more pain than gain. It is funny how they say they want to make health care a right. They made our civil rights a right but those of us who had to deal with lawyers to protect our civil right know that these rights are really privilages. If you can't afford an expensive lawyer in many cases you really have not enforcable civil rights. So what if they are written on paper? You go to court and a lawyer can convince a mentally retarded jury that up is really down. The lawyer points to the ceiling and says, "The victim was lying on the floor looking up and and that was like staring down into a pit. So is'nt up the same thing as down?" Well of course it's relative but then why is'nt free use of attorneys for any court a right? Only the doctors and hospital stays are supposed to be free? A Good attorney si a necessity in court but they can make you pay $400 an hour and a doctor who maybe a necessity when you are sick is supposed to be provided free! Maybe there are not enough doctors as law makers in congress? Social planning is what government is really after taking over the health care system obviously. first and foremost they want to buy votes with the entitlement. second they want to reduce the costs of welfare for single mothers by forcing abortion and by grabbing new borns and selling them. The government already discovered this lucrative business of child redistribution but it will get worse with the health care plan after they set the secret objectives of cutting single mother welfare costs. A lot of liberals are not going to like the results and don't understand that what the democrasts start eventually the repulicans can take over. The replicans will work to get the abortion out of the system and will want to remove children from unmarried single mothers and adopt them out just the same. It is not just the end of life issues we hear about in the mass media where social engineering is going to be what govenrment wants out of the health care system. They will prey on children trying to find health needs they have to satisfy by creating as many uncessary social worker jobs as possible. Oregon is famous for taking chilredn from parents who could not afford medical treatment for their children and putting the kids in foster families instead of letting the children live at home with their parents. A government that already will behave this way is no government you want pediatric health care from! In Britain the medical health care system is pure child abuse above and beyond the awful child protective horror show we have in the USA. Wait , it even gets worse. Because govenrment wants to shut down existing jobs in health care industry and repalce all those people with civil servants and union employees who can never be fired no mater how much the customers complain. Don't want a service they offer you? Don't dare complain. You go to a doctor and they tell you what your problem is not you telling them. Have you ever met children who ran away from a great foster family? In oregon it turns out that 70 plus percent of the under age children who are missing , and sometimes unreported missing , from foster families in the state are the homeless street kids in Portland. The oregon health plan which is a rationing plan already has some of their patients sleepin in door ways down town at night in wheel chairs. Some of us really trust big government. You can if you want to . Other things get interesting. If say you are a scientologist and you go to a hospital and you say you don't want to see a psychiatrist because it is against your relgion you will be forced to or put in prison for not allowing your kids to be drugged. If you are member of the Chirstian Science Church you will have similar problems. Your kids will be taken to the hospital form public school and they will be drugged worse than they are today in schools. What if you are a member of the 7th day adventists and you already have a great health care system? Or catholic and want to go to a catholic hospital. Watch out Nuns and priests will be banned from traditional catholic hospitals and abortions will become manditory for the indigent when the automonous commission makes that decision. Catholic hospitals have already threatened to shut down if the govenrment forces them to provide euthansia services and abortion services and they will shut down. You thought we had freedom of religion in this country? The devil is in the details and it is no wonder that congress and the president are giving us none of the real details not even the fact that the rules will expand to hundres of million of pages and statutes to millions of pages and court cases to millions of pages before we know what the system will really be like. Ronald Reagan was right government is the problem! It wants to be the problem. We can't let be. When you go to visit your congresman or senator ask them these basic questions. 1. why are they making themselves excempt? Why don't congresmen just go on medicare and to a veterans hospital now? 2. why don't they increase incentives to bring competition and choice into the system with tax incentives and tax advantages including deductions for health care instead of turning the whole industry in to a sytem run by an ouit of control angency and a huge number of lawyers who must see something lucrative in if for them if they support it? 3. Why don't we allow drug companies to expand the length of their patents in exchange for lowering prices now? 4. How can the govenrment make health care cost less when they will be limiting providers to save money. How does supply and demand work to produce more of a good thing if they plan on limiting it artifiically? 5. If health care is a good thing why do they want to limit how much of it is avalable and not increase the amount available with tax incentives. Why should health care not be 40% of the economy instead of 25%? What percentage of the economy do they intend it to be after they take over and when so where are the taxes coming from to pay for it when everyone now paying taxes in that indsutry and related industries won't be once government is lowering costs? 6. Ask your congresman and senator to give you their social security number and drivers liscence and a copy of their tax returns because when you check into a doctors office after they take over they are going to want all kinds of information on you that no doctor would dare ask you for. You buy healt care insurance and you give the doctor that number and your social security nubmer now not your tax return. 7. What happens when government asks you for your net asset value and your tax returns because they expect your home as payment for your medical care? They already have programs like this in oregon with reverse mortages to the state to grab your property when you get sick. Watch out. Ask more question because they don't want you to know. .