It’s simply staggering what the US has been able to achieve in only just over 200 years of independence.  After all, England was once the biggest empire with a history spanning 2000 years.  Yet somehow they’ve managed to become a nation in which so many don’t own a flat screen or have internet in their homes. And when few have a cell phone plan with unlimited evening and weekend minutes, England isn’t exactly a country to envy.  But still, many Americans today feel deprived everyone over there has health care and we don’t.  Do they pay for it though?  You bet!  The average person in England is taxed about 65% of total income in the form of sales taxes at 18.5%, outrageously high TV taxes just to watch public television channels, and even a fee on local phone calls.  More so, they often start out with lower gross incomes than Americans.  Matters are even worse in France and Germany, just to name a few. You wouldn’t realize most of this as a tourist going out and having fun in the pubs, unless you sit at a middle class family’s dinner table and watch as they ration milk, and listen as a child tells you he wished to ride in a school bus just once.  And then it becomes obvious that we as Americans take for granted those things which are luxuries to even the world’s largest economies.  At least that’s how I came to realize it.  To what is such a disparity owed I asked myself while living in England, especially when it’s the 5th largest economy in the world?  I found the answer lied in the comparison of Capitalism vs. Socialism.

When bureaucrats are in charge of an industry, salaries don’t rely on profits, which makes innovativeness and efficiency low on the priority list.  The result is a very cost ineffective service, plain and simple. This forces the government to tax society disproportionately heavy relative to the service it’s able to provide them.  Unfortunately the government service is always disorganized and inaccessible.  That’s why as a country gets more socialized, quality of life keeps going down.  In the case of healthcare for example, everyone technically has free health insurance even though they more than pay for it in the form of heavy taxation, yet for so many, that insurance is pointless since the wait lists to see doctors are months long.  In England, the wait list specifically to see a dentist is 6 months.  People who simply cannot wait end up paying for care out of pocket, like I did even though I was covered under the country’s NHS.  For those who pay taxes in England, this means they’ve essentially paid twice for the same service via both taxation and out of pocket expense.  In a free market system, if an entity/business earns very high profits, someone else inevitably comes along and offers the same service/product for less.  Ultimately, it’s a system which corrects itself in ensuring people get their money’s worth, so to speak.  It’s the foundation of the American economy.  This gives everyone a chance to provide a service, without being muscled out by the government.  So if you didn’t know already, now you know why America is globally referred to as the Land of Opportunity.

This begs the question then, why did England, France, Eastern Europe, and so many others adopt such a way of life?  Why didn’t they just embrace capitalism like we did?  Easy.  Governments charmed people into believing wealth results only from greed, corrupt practices, and unfair advantages so money should be rightfully taken away from the rich, and that money should then be re-allocated to every individual.  It’s as if to say, ordinary people are never corrupt.  But since the vast majority of any population aren’t rich, such rhetoric sounded attractive.  The masses of people were enchanted by governments who told them free enterprise and lack of regulation has led them to be disenfranchised.  If the government controls everything, it will ensure fairness and equality, they were told.  But yet, every socialized country suffers with homelessness just like ours, despite their citizens being taxed at sky high levels in comparison to Americans.  Even further, those who are rich enough don’t even consider their own country’s universal systems as an option.  Nope, it’s what the non-rich are forced to accept.  Virtually all the rich send their kids to private school for a chance at advanced courses. The rich all go to private hospitals and visit private clinics for their health needs.

So with the rich and the non-rich living under two separate structures, why is such a two-tiered way of life so inappropriately described as universal?  Again, it’s all part of any government’s way of influencing the masses.  Only in America can a janitor’s health plan from a State university for instance, allow him the same hospitals and for the most part, the same care as a millionaire.  Now if you ask me, that symbolizes “universal” more than anything else.  Ask any economics professor, and you’ll get the same answer; anytime government intervenes into an industry/sector the total cost to society goes up.  Or simply just ask anyone and they’ll tell you there’s no free lunch, yet if you tell them they will get something for free, they are still inclined to vote yes.  We just so desperately want to believe there’s a free lunch out there.

As obvious as it might be that so many countries have been scammed by their leaders who sought power and control, here we are, faced with a President doing exactly the same to our country as other governments did to theirs.  But do we really even realize it?

And this brings us to the issue of Health Care.... a sector in which our government now wants to get deeply involved.

To those who subscribe to the myth; Medicare is government run health care.  Realize, Medicare doesn’t choose your doctor and hospital, and doesn’t determine your appointment day and time.  Medicare is more accurately government sponsored health care.  Besides, not only is it costing tax payers $trillions, it’s bankrupt, despite the government’s claim it has only a 4% overhead.  So, so much for that.

For those fixated on America spending 1.5x on healthcare as any other nation but not having longer life spans, realize that in Europe, hospitals have one nurse for ten patients who sleep behind curtains, often while waiting to get something as simple as a chest x-ray.  Sure this won’t affect outcome, but it sure makes life inconvenient.  And realize that no other country deals with our obesity pandemic, a major cause of most health related disorders.  Realize that no other country will attempt to deliver a fetus as early as the US does in order to preserve the maximum number of lives.  Instead, they let them go and refer to the result as “fetal demise” or “miscarriage,” anything but the horrible sounding word, “death.”  The WHO knows the US has by far the most advanced neonatal care in the world, but manipulates that statistic and calls us 29th in infant mortality.  Shame on you, WHO.

So if you ask me, all factors considered, the cost of healthcare in the US is a pretty good value compared to what the rest of the world gets.

And for those who think 46 million Americans have no access to health care, realize  this statistic is a manipulated figure.  The US Census estimates: 45.7 million lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007.  Some merely lacked coverage for one or two months.  They also estimate 26% of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it... and finally 20% of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/  Further anyone can be treated for free in an Emergency Room, while the tab is inadvertently translated into higher costs to those who are insured and/or pay for their expenses.  It’s also estimated another 10 million defer insurance from their employer in exchange for higher salaries.   All stats coming from the US Census Bureau.

But still, with many Americans uninsured, and while costs remain on the rise, it’s not good enough, which means we need reform.  As a side, it’s important to note about healthcare costs.  We’ve already elucidated why they are high in the first place.  The relevant question now, is why are they getting higher when healthcare providers are virtually the only profession to have not seen a pay increase in decades?  Lack of constraint on malpractice suits forcing doctor’s to run excessive tests, increasing obesity, and the fact that healthcare has continually more to offer, are a few of the main reasons.

The debate regarding healthcare reform is essentially over the question:  Should the government be in control, or should society be in control?  In other words, Socialism or Capitalism?  And hence, the reason why Healthcare reform in our country has become a huge issue of politics.  The President wants us to think the Republicans have made this personal by a few who decided health care could be his Waterloo.  He very conveniently ignores having started it by telling the Democrats in Congress if they didn’t support his proposal, they would ruin his presidency.

So let’s examine the contenders: HR 3200(ObamaCare) vs. HR 3400(GOP Reform).  Let me guess?  You haven’t heard of HR 3400?  That’s because the Democrats have done a brilliant job at hiding it.

HR 3200 is the Democratic proposal written by President Obama, aka ObamaCare which bears a $1 trillion price tag to tax payers.  It’s a 1017 page doctrine full of ambiguous and incoherent language available in pdf format online at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf , which essentially calls for a total overhaul of our entire health care system along with a massive expansion of government to regulate it.  Patients will carry around a card to be swiped, like a credit card in offices and hospitals, while a computer reads if a given public option policy covers a service or not.  Unlike with an insurer, this decision has no appeal.  1017 pages of litigation, yet doesn’t address anywhere, essentially the largest issue concerning inflated health costs: lawsuit abuse.  It’s one of the many key indicators of Pres. Obama’s complete partisan scam.  Perhaps, since trial lawyers make up a huge part of the democratic base, Pres. Obama didn’t want to offend them so he’s decided to provide solutions unrelated to the real problem.

More specifically, the proposal allows the federal government to use tax payer money to subsidize health plans( called public option plans that choose one’s doctor, hospital, and day of appointment), putting the government in direct competition with private insurers.    Although the inclusion of the public option just now failed to get Senate approval, the Democrats vow to reintroduce it at a later date, so it is important to understand their potential impact.  It will drive down costs because we’ll pay for it from rich people’s pockets Pres. Obama says, which in the end is the perfect sales pitch to the masses as we’ve seen from countries having socialized much of their industry.

The public options plans for sale are described on pages 84-85 as Basic, Enhanced, Premium, and Premium-Plus. Although specifics such as deductible amounts and coverage aren’t mentioned, the plans limit health benefits to such an extreme that dental and vision coverage aren’t even components unless the Premium-Plus plan is owned. Now if that’s not rationed care, I don’t know what is.  But the president so eloquently insists he is going to provide all Americans with quality healthcare.

Let’s stop for a moment and be realistic.  Are any of the 46 million Americans mentioned really going to buy a government plan to save a few bucks?  Probably not. They will have to buy some form of insurance though.  That’s because the proposal comes with legislation that penalizes anyone who does not own health insurance.  That’s right.  It will be against the law to not own health insurance.  So then who will buy these plans?  Big corporations, that’s who!  Employers will buy them to save money once an employee’s plan is up for renewal, meaning their employees will lose their existing doctor.  President Obama just reinforced this notion himself in his recent address to Congress, when he explained “The Congressional Budget Office estimates only 5% of the uninsured will purchase a public option plan.”   He goes on to argue that a government option is merely a necessity to set a cost/quality standard to which private insurers must compete.  He further argues that private universities do very well, while competing with public ones.  His arguments in theory might hold true if a person were purchasing health insurance for themselves.  But since most health insurance is purchased by an employer for an employee, the obvious choice is the cheapest one. In this case, a subsidized public option plan, to which no private company can reasonably compete.

In fact, every single claim I’ve heard Pres. Obama make regarding his healthcare proposal seems to be dubious at best according to his proposal’s language, and this includes his claim that illegal immigrants won’t get healthcare. Sure sounds like it if you read page 50.  But then again, your guess is probably as good as mine in terms of what he means by “...relating to genetic information non-discrimination..”  And then why does he keep saying 46 million Americans, when 37 million is the actual White House and US Census estimation of those who are non-immigrants without health insurance (it is not known what percentage of the 9 million immigrants are here illegally).

We’ve also all heard the infamous, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your insurance company, you can keep your insurance company.”  “No one is talking about a government take-over of healthcare.” So what’s the worry right?  The worry is how many of us have actually read or can possibly understand what he’s written in his proposal, which according to most rational minds that I’ve consulted, including my own, can be interpreted to say on:

page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to public option plan rules in order to participate in the Healthcare Exchange.

page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare exchange.

And it very explicitly says on:

pages 124-125: There shall be no administrative or judicial review of payment rates or the methodology by which payment rates are calculated.

am I reading this correct? Basically, the government is allowed to monopolize and crush private insurers, then?

(in other words, TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF HEALTHCARE!)

If you’re confused, there’s an acronym QHBP(not specified anywhere but probably means Quality Health Benefits Plan) used.  Perhaps the convoluted language can be interpreted another way.  The fact that the language, however, is so convoluted raises serious red flags about the President’s honesty.  How is it possible to trust a man who repeatedly tells us we need transparency in government, yet insists the country adopt 1017 pages of his cryptic language into our law books while refusing to tell us anything other than vague generalities?

We’ve heard by Pres. Obama’s own admission at the recent Colorado town hall, “I think we can craft a way....” referring to his public option plans operating separately from the federal government in order to provide fair competition against the private sector.  The key words being “I think.”  He also just recently stated in his address to Congress, “While there remains some significant details to be ironed out...”  A 1017 page proposal, yet the basics haven’t even been ironed out.  This has now become a recurring theme by our President.

Let’s move on to HR 3400, aka The Empowering Patients First Act, available in full text at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3400.  It’s also available in a very easy to read summary at:

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RSC_EPFA_Three-Page_Summary--FINAL.pdf

It’s a clear and coherent 63 page document proposed by the GOP, written by Congressman and Surgeon Tom Price.  Unlike ObamaCare, it does in fact address lawsuit abuse, as well every major identifiable problem with our healthcare system in a simple 4 pillar manner outlined below (even shown are a few of the highlights under each pillar) that would give affordable coverage to each and every American while preserving everything that’s good about our health care system:

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

via a system of tax deductions and tax credits to accommodate all income levels

allows consumers to shop across state lines, and pool together plans

ensures coverage to all those with pre-existing conditions

......

Pillar #2: Coverage Is Truly Owned by the Patient

includes portability from one job to another

......

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

Reforms the medical liability system

Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse to name a few ways.

That’s right, it doesn’t cost a penny.  So why haven’t we heard more about it?  Why has Pres. Obama failed to acknowledge it even exists?  It’s because Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have conspired with Pres. Obama to confiscate the proposal and keep it quarantined while they keep shoving their own proposal down our throats at town halls and press conferences, pretending as if the only other option is the status quo because Republicans haven’t put anything forward.  Somehow, the President has even managed to escape without having to succumb to even a single debate regarding this issue.  Doesn’t matter really, because with not even a single part of plan clearly explained, alongside so many backdoors in the legislation, it’s almost impossible to prove or disprove anything in it.  Initially, the President told us that government option plans would be subsidized by tax payers money.  He very clearly articulated this in response to a question at the Colorado town hall where he himself said “ If we keep pouring more and more tax payer money into the plans, it will be at a greater cost to society.”  Now he’s changed his mind to say they won’t be subsidized.  Okay, in that case... then for what does he still need an extra $900 billion, on top of the proposed $500 billion in cuts to Medicare?  Meanwhile, the mainstream media isn’t helping elucidate any of this stuff.  Or maybe his threats to create FCC fees on public networks when they were reluctant to show his prime time specials based on lack of popular demand, has been more impacting than we think.

I like how radio talk show host, Herman Cain, has summed up the difference...

“Unlike Democrat-care, the Republican alternative would not impose fines on workers or employers, require cuts in Medicare, increase taxes, require a new government bureaucracy, require a “government health insurance” option nor add $1 trillion or more to the national debt. The Republican alternative is simply less government, fewer taxes and more choices, whereas Democrat-care is just another attempt to hijack more of our liberties.” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108440

As I recall, President Obama campaigned very heavily that big corporations were getting too many tax breaks and that corruption on Wall Street needed to be addressed.    Fiscal responsibility is important in a President, he belabored. Yet one of the very first things he did as President was reward corporate financial CEOs with multibillion dollar bonuses right from the pockets of tax payers. This, to people after they bankrupted their own companies while defrauding investors, all for personal financial gain,.  Perhaps, this CEO bonus money was somewhat related to financial institutions having given President Obama more than three times the money they contributed to John McCain’s campaign...  some food for thought.