Become informed and defend your freedoms.  This is a website for citizens by an independent citizen.

in 2009 there is no bigger issue

What's afoot in All of This Reform?

What is afoot is a curious array of half logic and a lack of looking at data.  There seems to be especially embedded in Obamacare, either in the house Bill or the Senate Bill, and the ensuing strategy, a dislike for looking in the mirror.  If the government influence was so beneficial to the healthcare industry in terms of cost, then why are we where we are right now?   

The new film by Morris takes aim at capitalism, which gives Henninger a chance to take aim at both him and Obama in this video.   We are at the precipice of a huge amount of social transfer payment or entitlement institutions being installed in this country. 

The move to a super-State, the notion that the Public sector drives this society (see the video at the bottom of this page) instead of the Private sector has some very serious implications and is meeting with increased opposition.   This makes healthcare reform more than a policy issue, it makes it a society issue.  As is detailed elsewhere, the question of whether Obamacare meets any of the needs of society have been answered, and it does not pass even Obama's three tests, will lead to a massive tax increase in the middle class, and can in effect reduce the quality of care for all.  So why is this being pursued so vehemently and to such detriment to the country?  

Perhaps the answer is in that Obama has felt that with the win in the election he could achieve the healthcare reform he wanted if he moved fast.  With the need for speed, so self imposed, it also became a war-like approach.  The following video speaks to this and to the meaning of the town hall meetings:

Of course the question can be extended to why hasn't the government fixed the Medicare deficit problem?  Some who think also that Medicare is working great, should visit the section on Medicare.  I have seen arguments that Medicare has lower administration costs than private insurance needs to read the article that says that this is not so.   Again the use of an analytical approach to data review is very much needed in the reform debate, and has been generally lacking.

There is a growing sense of distrust in government, and not a conspiracy of the Right wing, in setting up the strong and very vocal opposition at town hall meetings.  Henninger delves into the trust issue in the 2nd video below, but first comments on Big Box politics that is working at the moment:

Big Box Politics

 

Nearly 50% of all healthcare is expense coming from the government, and much of that cost shifts some of the real expense to the private sector.  Why does not the government fix Medicare first?  Why should we believe that extending government control to the entire healthcare industry will bring about better care for more people at a reduced cost?   Is the Post Office a good care to consider?  what about healthcare in the State of Massachusetts?  Read about them and see if you think the Federal Government will suddenly out do the private sector. 

Nancy Pelosi spoke as follows:  Hold the insurance companies accountable. Remove them from between you and your doctor. No discrimination for pre-existing conditions. No dropping your coverage because you get sick. No more job or life decisions made based on loss of coverage. No need to change doctors or plans. No co-pays for preventive care. No excessive out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles, or co-pays. No yearly or lifetime cost caps on what insurance companies cover.

So the problem is the insurance companies and discrimination.  Once resolved then all of these services will be free.  Wonderful imagination, and totally lacking in any sound reasoning or data.  What continues to be wrong with today's healthcare system, despite Pelosi's imagination, is that the markets are not working well.   We need markets to work well, not for the government to further distort the markets.

Status quo is not acceptable.  Status quo is the result over time of a creeping upward influence over healthcare by the government.  The lack of sound reasoning is apparent in so many places, but how about this quote from Arianna Huffington, a online liberal beam of opinion:

“The right to negotiate drug prices is how free markets operate — taking advantage of economies of scale and the bargaining power that comes with bulk purchasing. To give this up should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in a functioning capitalist system, as opposed to what we are increasingly becoming: an oligarchy of powerful interests. In the same way, having a public option is the only meaningful way to provide competition leading to lower insurance costs.”

The comment about a capitalist system does not describe the current healthcare industry, which is most apparent with a little honest investigation.  To state the only solution to improve competition is by involving the federal government is without precedent or basis.

We are abruptly faced with the question, do we want the public sector to dominate solving problems like these, or do we want to rely on the private sector? 

If you want DC to manage not just the definition of the path but also deliver the goods at whatever cost, then you are on the public side.  That outcome would change America totally, so study the issue carefully and do not think tribally about what side you should be on, just think about what side makes sense.  This has become an issue that flies past the issue of partisanship and heads into transformation of the society space.

Putting this struggle into philosophical focus, the struggle we see is a contest to see if the Public Sector will run the economy or the private sector.  It has been going on longer than just this debate on healthcare reform.  Hear Henninger explain:

And also on the effects of dealing with the dictators of the world and what interests that supports: