Proposed health legislation contains restrictions on American freedoms
Posted Wed, 2009-07-29 00:41
Shawn Tully, editor at large of Fortune Magazine, maintains the proposed health care legislation going through Congress and the Senate contains severe restrictions on what Americans can have in the way of health care.
Despite promises made to the contrary, careful reading of the bills going through the legislature reveal the following new restrictions on American’s choices or freedoms in health care:
# Freedom to choose what is included in your health plan.You will have to take a government approved plan which will no doubt include things that you don’t want or need and may leave out things you do need and want.
# You will not be allowed to take out very high deductible insurance.This would keep you from having a Health Savings Account. As I noted in an earlier blog the health savings account is one of the best vehicles for getting the country into a market oriented economy for medicine. See “Buddy Davenport’s State Farm Understands the value of Free Market Health Savings posted May 30, 2009.”
# No one will be allowed to issue insurance that gives people a break for having healthier lifestyles. In other words the healthy will be burdened to pay for the unhealthy. Since this type of insurance pricing is foisted on the healthy by present state laws many young, healthy people have opted not to have health insurance because it is over priced and they feel they don’t need it.
# You will not be able to keep your existing plan. It may take a while but your existing plans will be forced out of existence. Note that this has happened in all socialized medicine systems so there is no historical reason to hope to keep your present plan no matter what the legislation might say.
# You will not be able to choose your doctor. Even if it wasn’t spelled out in the legislation, no state run system has ever let the patients choose their doctors and there is no reason to think that ours will.
To top this all off, the Congressional Budget Office has revealed that it could not find cost savings to be gained in these plans. Since the CBO is controlled by the Democrats and has been put under great pressure by the administration to deliver a favorable report, there is no reason to believe that there is some economic virtue in this plan.
To top it all off, the health plans put forward will severely cut old people off from medical care. Ironically the AARP has endorsed these plans, which says that it has “ratted out” on its own constituency.
In view of the above considerations plus many more, it appears that the American public will come to oppose the health care reform more and more as time goes on. There is very little in nationalized health care that Americans will really like.
About the Blogger
The Right Side By Peter Mallory
Peter Mallory of New Smyrna Beach is retired as co-publisher of NSBNews.net, but he continues as an award-winning blogger for the 24/7 Internet newspaper he helped Editor/Publisher Henry Frederick establish in 2008. He was recognized as a top blogger with NSBNews.net in 2011 by the Florida Press Club.
Peter Mallory of NSBNews.net Named award Winning Blogger
View Peter's Blog Archives
Comments
Healthcare myths from "The Right Side"
I feel compelled to respond to a number of outright falsehoods in "Proposed healthcare legislation contains restrictions on American freedoms," as well as an earlier one titled "Realities outweigh myths against nationalized health care." This is a case where right-wing ideology is blinding the writer to actual facts.
President Barack Obama has laid out 3 main parts that he would like to see in any healthcare reform bill that is brought to a vote in the full House and Senate. Those are: (1) If you have healthcare coverage you like, you keep it. (2) The creation of a health insurance marketplace just like the one members of Congress are offered that would present Americans with a variety of options in coverage so they can put together an affordable plan that works for them. (3) A public option plan for healthcare coverage that functions as a competitive part of the health insurance marketplace. People could compare coverage proposals under the public option to those offered by private insurance companies and determine which fits their needs and budgets.
The overriding fact is that legislation being discussed now for healthcare reform does not propose a government-run, single-payer system covering everyone for everything. Which means the shrill cries about "Socialized medicine...Canada...Italy...Britain...France, etc." and on and on are beyond ridiculous. Since the facts don't support that idea, they're either based on a refusal to educate one's self or a right-wing agenda.
That automatically negates the writer's assertions that follow, including:
a) "You will have to take a government approved plan which will no doubt include things that you don’t want or need and may leave out things you do need and want." False, see above reason.
Which leads us to these statements:
b) You will not be allowed to take out very high deductible insurance.This would keep you from having a Health Savings Account. (and) No one will be allowed to issue insurance that gives people a break for having healthier lifestyles. There is no firm healthcare legislation proposed so the writer is just guessing here to fit his anti-reform beliefs.
c)You will not be able to keep your existing plan. It may take a while but your existing plans will be forced out of existence. Note that this has happened in all socialized medicine systems so there is no historical reason to hope to keep your present plan no matter what the legislation might say. Note: This statement is false because President Obama has stated in numerous public forums that, if you have a healthcare plan you like, you can keep it. Also, there is No "socialized medicine" proposal.
d) You will not be able to choose your doctor. Even if it wasn’t spelled out in the legislation, no state run system has ever let the patients choose their doctors and there is no reason to think that ours will. False, see other points above.
e) The Congressional Budget Office has revealed that it could not find cost savings to be gained in these plans. Since the CBO is controlled by the Democrats and has been put under great pressure by the administration to deliver a favorable report, there is no reason to believe that there is some economic virtue in this plan. The CBO did indeed say a couple earlier proposals didn't do enough to cut costs. However, the CBO found a more recent proposal WOULD NOT add to the deficit. All of these discussions are still very preliminary, so there will be more CBO estimates to come.
f) To top it all off, the health plans put forward will severely cut old people off from medical care. Ironically the AARP has endorsed these plans, which says that it has “ratted out” on its own constituency. False. This is a "scare tactic" Republicans are attempting to use on older Americans to kill any proposed healthcare reform. President Obama has talked about cutting costs, in part by eliminating the duplication of tests that are performed. Folks, how many of you have been referred for two or more duplicate lab tests because doctors didn't have access to those records. Multiply that, and add other more expensive test duplications, by millions of patients. That's some of the cost cutting Obama wants to target. AARP is a dogged and determined opponent of anything that could adversely affect seniors. Does anyone truly believe AARP would "rat out" the very people who give it nationwide clout? Of course not.
The truth is we have a piecemeal, inadequate healthcare system that leaves out millions upon millions of people and rations healthcare access for people now. I myself was denied a common screening for a type of cancer that runs in my family, despite the fact my healthcare insurer says in its plan literature that the procedure is covered! They just didn't want to pay for it, so they refused. Like scores of people across the country, I have no recourse. To many insurance companies, I, and they, are just a number.
We can do better than that in America.
Obama wants to kill your Grandmother!
At least "Right Side" has the good sense not to use this tactic; however, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., used this scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government," and therefore, wouldn't be pro-life. The GOP has pushed this line especially hard with some of the conservative groups behind the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case a few years ago, hoping to get antiabortion allies on board fighting reform. "Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?" one-time GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked about the alleged euthanasia scheme on his radio show last month. "They're going to counsel you on preparing you to die," Rush Limbaugh pronounced a few weeks ago. Proof of how far this attack has spread came last week, when a caller to an AARP forum asked Obama about it directly. (Probably unwisely, the president tried to make light of the question, saying there weren't enough government employees to go meet with old people to talk about end-of-life care.)
Healthcare in the US
U.S. Congress. Representatives and Senators alike receive some of the best health care benefits in the country, much of it paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet most of the Republican members seem unable - or unwilling - to extend similar protections to the rest of America. As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents. Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately. And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.