Time Running Out for Bipartisan Health Compromise - Political News - FOXNews.com

Time Running Out for Bipartisan Health Compromise - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

It's always nice to see legislators "playing nice" and trying to cooperate for the common good. In this case, however, it is clear that HR 3200 is beyond redemption and should be thrown in the trash for the common good. The bill has far too many arcane, ill-defined, loosely-worded dictates that allow for the powers-that-be (regardless of party) to set the tone for health care based on political expediency.

A case in point is when the Republicans in Committee introduced amendments to prohibit federal funding for abortion and to require proof of legal residence or citizenship. Both were rejected on party-line votes. Of course, the President and the Bill's proponents have said that no federal dollars would be used for the funding of abortion and illegal immigrants would not be covered. They've said that, but they won't put it in the legislation because, clearly, that isn't what they want to happen should this monstrosity pass and be signed into law.

The President and the Bill's proponents have said that the bill won't result in us losing our choice of insurance. They won't explain, however, why there are mandates that don't allow us to change the terms of private insurance or move to another private insurer once he bill becomes law. And why will our tax return information be shared with a nebulous, appointed "Commissioner" who will decide what level of care we qualify for? And why will the tax information be shared with the Social Security Administration? And why is there a fine by the IRS should we be found to not have what qualifies as "appropriate" health insurance?

The President and the Bill's proponents have said that the bill won't result in rationing. If the number of physicians remain the same and the amount of money to fund health care is lowered as they say it will be, how can it not result in rationing? The answer is, of course, that it will result in rationing and the elderly--the Baby Boomers--will bear the brunt of it. And what's this about government counseling that would help people to decide whether to live or die? They said it wasn't in there, but then announced that it would be removed when the heat was too much for them to bear. If there weren't "death panels" then why did they announce that they would be removed?

Another issue is cost. The President and the Bill's proponents say that the cost will not impact on the deficit. That, given the scope of the legislation, is an outright lie. Just like the "I won't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.00 per year" was a lie. They've already done that with SCHIP. And if Cap & Trade passes, get ready for a hit to the pocketbook that will put us all into little "People's Cars" or on bicycles.

The bottom line is that this bill must be scrapped in its entirety. It was written under the midnight oil by a bunch of liberal ideologues who clearly had the ulterior motive of socializing 1/6th of the U.S. economy. It is not a Health Care Bill. It is not a Health Insurance Reform Bill. It is a partisan, Government Central-Planning Empowerment Bill.

If the President is serious about health care reform as opposed to a fascist take-over of the nation (which his defenders laugh-off as the psychotic rantings of the far-right) then he should address those issues known to impact the cost of health care. Repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 USC 1011) of 1944 is one as it allows individual states to control the health insurance costs in that state by imposing restrictions on coverage and portability. Tort reform to eliminate the medical lottery syndrome among trial lawyers is another as are health savings accounts. But these are strangely absent from the Democrat written and sponsored legislation that they are trying to shove down our throats and the reason is simple: To do so would adversely impact some of the deep pockets that fund the Democrat party and would not increase the government's control over the people.

We already have the best health care in the world and that is proven by the way that people who need medical treatment vote with their feet. Canadians and others in need of care who can't wait for their own nationalized health service to provide treatment, come here for life-saving procedures on a regular basis. People in America don't have to wait to see a specialist and, most importantly, people are not denied health care. Well, most of the time, anyway. There is an exception in Oregon where they have a state-run health care program (much like what HR 3200 proposes) that infamously told a cancer patient that the care recommended by the doctor was too expensive but that they would provide her the appropriate drugs so that she could commit physician-assisted suicide. As the President said, this is what they want for us: Take the pill rather than the treatment because that is best for all.

We can improve our system without dismantling the health care system that an overwhelming majority of Americans rate as good or excellent. That is, if actual improvement is the true goal of the Administration. Unfortunately, HR 3200 makes it clear that "improvement" in the Democrat lexicon is much different than the definition in Webster's. To the Administration, Reid and Pelosi, "improvement" means more power to the government and direction from the government. It certainly doesn't mean better health care for all Americans.

The sooner this bill is trashed, the better.

Join the TEA Party in Washington, DC, on September 12. Let them know how America feels.