Quick Take On Nationalized Health Care

First, I have lived in countries with socialized medicine.  I like my choice of health care I have here and want to keep it.  I do not want a mandatory government system in the United States, as I have seen the difference in care under the different systems.  I want to keep my choice, particularly, because I have children with what will be a lifetime chronic disease (until a cure is found) and have seen the “care” given to chronic sufferers under socialized systems.

Anyway, besides the degraded and rationed care that will be brought by a “public option” (aka co-op), we will also see deficits skyrocket per the latest Congressional Budget Office analysis and watch as taxes are raised on all of us.  This is all being done under the guise of helping the uninsured and pretending the Constitution allows us to do so.    A soldier provides an excellent point on the Constitution and government-run health care followed by an editorial cartoon on the uninsured:

Hot Air has put up a post that links to the full CBO report on who the uninsured are, as well.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir has done a good job following this.  Keep tabs on him as this will, most likely, be my only post on the issue and it is, clearly, scant on details (Morrissey and his source links can fill in the gaps).

Thus far, Congress is getting flooded with calls from the public opposed to this.  Continue to call your Representatives (especially the “blue dogs”) and Senators about this.

5 thoughts on “Quick Take On Nationalized Health Care

  1. You should be happy, because nobody is proposing a mandatory government health care system in the United States.

  2. The intent is to phase it in. Private insurers can not compete with it and will be priced out of the market, so to speak. Several bill supporting Senators/Reps have said so as well as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

    Additionally, IBD found that page 16 of the bill includes a provision that insurance companies may not enroll new applicants after the bills effective date. That means if I loose my insurance etc the only option I would have is the public plan as no insurer would be allowed to accept new enrollments.

    Here’s the wording in the bill:

    “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

    Edit: Plus, as far as I am concerned (as noted in the video) there is no Constitutional authority to do this, anyway.

  3. So, you believe that government health care will be less expensive than for-profit insurance. Also, that people who choose the public option will be more satisfied with the quality of care. This is true.

    What’s not true is that the House bill would make private medical insurance illegal. That’s a right-wing myth.

  4. Your assumptions are way off. Nationalized health care will be much more expensive. The cost will be cloaked by taxes. Private insurance will wither as they can not compete with something everyone is already forced to pay for (ie using private insurance will be an additional cost over taxes paid for maintaining the public plan).

    I’m not going into a poll battle. There are tons on both sides of this issue, some good some lousy (especially when you look at their internals), not to mention the current opinion polls showing the public doesn’t like what Congress is doing with this. I have no idea which those you cite falls on. What matters more to me is not if the majority like their plan but if people can choose their best option for their families. With a government plan, that choice is ripped from you. The majority may like it (hard not to when it’s your only choice) but if you are in the minority and your needs are not met you are left twisting in the wind. Hence why we also see people come here for critical medical care instead of waiting in their home country.

    Thanks for posting the St. Petersburg Times article (makes good point on IBD) and it does end with that, ultimately, the provision of a national exchange will effectively force the insurers out of business and also does prevent me from dealing one-on-one with the company of my choice (rather, I have to deal with the “national exchange”).

    Again, this is all moot, in my opinion, as there is no Constitutional authority to cram this down our throats.

    Edit: For anyone interested, I found is the Heritage piece on IBD: Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance?

  5. it’s not nationalized health care, it’s nationalized insurance, there’s a difference. hospitals and doctors won’t work for the government, they’ll just be paid by the government instead of an insurance company.

    also what difference is there between this bill and any other congress passes in regards to constitutional authority?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s