6 Reasons Obama-Care Is Bad Medicine

by  Chuck Norris

07/28/2009

No one denies that in an affluent country such as our own, it borders on tragic that millions do not have some form of health care. I feel for those Americans; I really do. I agree that health care reform is needed badly in America, but I don't believe the bill of goods called "universal health care" that is being pitched presently by our president contains the solution. In fact, I believe it is bad medicine for America.

-- First, universal health care unwisely is being rushed.

Should sweeping health care reform be enacted in a world-record time? Just like the stimulus packages and bogus bailout baloney, Obama-care is being shoved downed America's throat (without explanation) and propelled like a ramrod through Congress (without examination). I call it the Obama blitzkrieg: create crisis; crunch numbers; and cram legislation. The fact is the president continues to sell the program, but there is still no single plan he or Congress is ready to sell.

-- Second, universal health care clearly would drive our country deeper into debt, which is being progressively purchased by foreign powers without any concern by Washington to stop it.

Obama said in his nationally televised news conference, "Health care reform is not going to add to that deficit; it's designed to lower it." How can he say that when they haven't even settled on a single health care plan? When he doesn't know the far-reaching implications of offering it in every community across the nation?

The president is struggling to base his rhetoric in fiscal reality. Even according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate version of the health care legislation "would result in a net increase in federal deficits of about $1.0 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019." Is that what you call good fiscal responsibility within an economy and government that already is bordering on bankruptcy?

-- Third, universal health care would impersonalize health care and ration medical services.

Government takeover of health care also would allow Washington to use "comparative effectiveness research" to dictate to doctors which treatments they should prescribe and how much they should cost. That in turn would lead to rationing of health care services.

Canada and Europe already have proved that national health care translates into national nightmares, with a plethora of new government regulations and new systems of rationing medical attention. Under government-run services, personal health care would transform into more impersonal harassment. More government means more menacing minutiae running our lives.

-- Fourth, universal health care ultimately would limit the competitive market of health care.

And what about for the taxpayers who would pay for the program? Would having universal health care encourage their future productivity? Further taxing members of the upper class (which would mean further penalizing their productivity) certainly would not provide incentive for Americans chasing the American dream. And their added taxes obviously would trickle down to consumers, as well. Or do we just assume they would pay 47 million Americans' universal health care out of their surpluses?

You don't create competitive markets by creating monopolies, yet that is exactly what government-run universal health care would prevent: competition. If government should do anything, it should crack down on medical insurance monopolies. If government wants to regulate one more thing, it would be better to regulate the medical insurance companies, not the American people.

-- Fifth, universal health care ultimately would transform legislators into quasi health care practitioners.

With government-sanctioned universal health care, legislators would become quasi medical practitioners because they would lead and guide the government-controlled medical boards, personnel and policies that would oversee the program. That would include abortive and end-of-life counsel and services. Federal politicians would rely upon relatively few chief physicians (appointed mostly by them), who in turn would oversee and implement the medical policies and procedures that they felt were best for the country.

-- Sixth, universal health care would increase big government, and America would continue on the slippery slope toward socialism.

The nanny state is not our solution to better health. Our government already provides two medical coverage programs: Medicare (for senior citizens) and Medicaid (for low-income citizens). The president mentioned in his speech last week that those two programs are the greatest contributors to our skyrocketing deficit. So why not reform, improve and enhance those programs rather than create a third (or fourth or fifth) government medical bureaucracy called "universal health care"?

What is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care program that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices or ration health care.

Why wait for Washington? Go to http://PatientsUnitedNow.com to learn more about how you and your local community can reform health care and keep your options for doctors and medical care. And mostly, go to the Web site of Dr. Betsy McCaughey at http://www.DefendYourHealthCare.us. She is a health policy expert and former lieutenant governor of New York and actually has read the entire Senate bill on universal health care. She is disclosing many hidden details within it that are not being discussed with the American public.

Posted via email from kleerstreem's posterous