Politics and Insights from History

August 20, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

Tuesday, August 11, you graced us with another Town Hall meeting. This seems to be the only thing you are good at. You have become quite adept at using these staged events to push the liberal agenda. Once again your entire speech was filled with one lie after another. You never answered any of the questions (if they could be called that) that were asked. Are you incapable of answering questions directly? Or are you too much of a coward?

You mentioned in your speech that people “are held hostage by health insurance.” People are not held hostage by insurance companies. Whether an insurance company pays for something or not, people still have access to high quality medical care. Hospitals will work with individuals who are unable to pay up front. Apparently you are under that assumption that people will only receive the treatment they need if their insurance agrees to pay the cost. But here’s a question: if the government insurance program refuses to pay for medical care, then by the same logic are you not held hostage by the government?

Once again you want us to believe that the stimulus bill is working. If so where is the evidence? The only jobs created are federal and state jobs. The only people benefiting from your stimulus are Union leaders. Unions have always killed capitalism. Government intervention destroys prosperous economies. Private business is what we need. Many businesses have closed their doors, or laid off employees to cover the rising costs that your Stimulus package put on them. Unemployment is close to 10%. And as you’ve said, only a third of the money was spent. If this is the result after only spending 1/3 of the allotted money, why spend the rest. Why don’t you and Congress give the rest of that $787 billion back to the people? The people have always been able to spend their hard earned money better and more efficiently than the government.

The Recovery Act is a failure. You love to mention Bush’s failed economic policies. Unemployment stayed fairly constant that last eight years, as the chart below indicates.

Figures from www.infoplease.com & http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=current+U.S.+unemployment+rate

When are you going to quit blaming Bush for your problems?

True to your Marxist principles, you instigate class warfare. The wealthy Americans are not paying enough. In truth, the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes than anyone else. You stated, “It doesn’t mean we can just sit back and do nothing while so many families are still struggling, because even before this recession hit we had an economy that was working pretty well for the wealthiest Americans, it was working pretty well for Wall Street bankers, it was working pretty well for big corporations, but it wasn’t working so well for everybody else. It was an economy of bubbles and busts.” Karl Marx would be so proud of you. The thing is, when the wealthy prosper, so do the poor. A free market economy always has “bubbles and busts”. The ups are usually long lived and the downturns are short. However, when government steps in to right wrongs that never existed those economic downturns last a long time. This is what you have been doing since January. Though you are only doing what our government has steadily done since F.D.R.

A free market society is the best society any nation can have. It gives all people the opportunity to succeed, but it does not guarantee results. The wealthiest Americans exist because they took the risk of seeking fortune, worked hard, and succeeded. They refused to settle for mediocrity. What you are pushing for is equal poverty. Your health plan will force everyone to pay all that they earn in order to support it. It will destroy business and destroy the economy. This has happened in every nation that has implemented such a plan. The results will be no different here.

Whereas many of the poor in this country remain so because they are dependent on the government for their livelihood. These people are on welfare, collect food stamps, and have Medicaid for health insurance. They have no incentive or desire to improve themselves and their lives.

You yourself are wealthy, Mr. President. You have more money than people can dream of. Many in your administration are wealthy. Are you, or they, willing to give up your wealth to someone who has less than $10,000? Are you willing to donate your money to a non profit charity that lives among the poor day after day trying to help them find work? Since you are unwilling to sacrifice your wealth for the sake of another, then do not force others to do it through a government mandate. You hypocrite.

You and your ilk always make it a crime for people or businesses to create profit from business transactions. You accuse the drug companies and insurance companies of making more money than they should. Who are you to decide how much they should make? Who are you to decide how much anyone should make? Those companies only stay alive because they make a profit and those profits are reinvested in the company. That is how business works. No one has the right to decide how much an individual or a business makes.

You try to use the fact that UPS and FedEx are doing just fine while competing against the Post Office as a reason for government run health care. “It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems,” you said. Maybe this is why the government should not run anything. The Post Office loses money every year. What will make government health care any different? FedEx and UPS came around because of the increasing inefficiency of the post office. They have proven that the government cannot run a business. Insurance, whether health or other, is a business.

You mentioned, “Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to 10 years.” If Medicare and Medicaid will be bankrupt in 10 years, then why are you expanding these unsustainable programs to cover everyone? Medicare and Medicaid are both government insurance programs done on a smaller scale. If they are bankrupt after 40 years, what makes you think you can just expand them on a national scale and have different results? Trying to use these two programs as a reason to have nationalized health care is a flawed argument.

Another aspect of our current health system that you claim is a problem is the fact that specialists are paid more than general practitioners. There is a reason for that. General practitioners see a wide variety of patients every day. They see more patients than the specialists. Because they see more people per day they can charge less per patient without suffering a huge deduction in pay.

Specialists only concentrate on one area of the medical field. They go through more years of school than your general practitioners. They only see patients that pertain to there area of expertise. A Cardiologist only sees patients with major heart problems. Oncologists see only cancer patients. And so on. That is their specialty. You wouldn’t send someone with a sore throat to these people. You also wouldn’t want a general practitioner treating you if you had cancer or a heart attack. Again, who are you to decide how much a doctor can or cannot make? Doctors are businessmen. Their practices are businesses. Setting restrictions on how much a physician earns compels them to treat less people and not care if their patient get well or not.

You contradicted yourself later when you mentioned that you managed to get “something right like Medicare.” How could the government have gotten Medicare right when it is bankrupt? You said yourself that it is headed on the road to bankruptcy. But you insist that the government got it right. If you believe this, then you have admitted that you think the right course for America is to spend it in to oblivion while taking complete control of private industry.

You addressed on person’s concerns by stating that Medicare benefits will not be cut to pay for this public option. One problem: about a month before you passed a proposal of how to pay for government run health care. One this proposal were cuts in Medicare and the supposed savings from these cuts would help pay for this health care reform of yours. Which is it?

Another portion of your speech states:

“Under the reform we’re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health insurance decisions but you and your doctor. I don’t think government bureaucrats should be meddling, but I also don’t think insurance company bureaucrats should be meddling. That’s the health care system I believe in.”

Mr. President, why do you continue to lie to us? Page 16 of the House Bill begins a list of requirements that must be met in order for individuals to be allowed to keep their current insurance plan. If none of those measures are met, they lose their insurance, forcing them on the government option. How is that allowing people to keep their current health insurance? There is a similar list for employer based insurance.

This bill has provisions for establishing advisory boards for everything: preventative care, use of medical practices, care received, prescriptions and so. With all of these health advisory boards, not only is there going to be a new bureaucracy formed, meaning increase government control, but what is to keep these boards from determining who your doctor is, what medical care you will be allowed to receive, or how much care you will receive? These boards will be headed by government bureaucrats. Who controls them? Another bureaucrat?

Either you do not have a clue of what is in this bill, or you do and do not care. I believe it is a combination of both. You know full well that this supposed reform imposes new taxes, cuts Medicare benefits, rations care, dictates the kind of medicine people can have and extends government control over every aspect of people’s lives. You know this and you do not care if it results in economic disaster, Americans being denied health care, or kills the ingenuity and initiative that drove us to develop better treatments for diseases.

Mr. President, your entire speech at this meeting is the equivalent of what comes out of a horse’s ass. You couldn’t even answer the pitiful questions that were asked. Instead, you continued to sell us a bushel of lemons. You claim to care about average American. You are a liar. You don’t care about the people. You just use them to get your government programs passed. You use the status quo, “the people,” to get what you want and if these measures fail you can stay afloat by claiming that you were only trying to help. Or, that your measures kept things from being worse.

Sincerely,

Lady Liberty

Everyday we are told that we need health care reform. Obama claims that the nation’s health care system needs to be overhauled and that he is the one to do it. Obama, Liberals and Democrats, the major media, and nearly every American believes that the health care system in this country is broken. People are told every day that if nothing is done, if the government doesn’t do something, then health care in America will vanish. People will not have access to medicine. The country will go bankrupt.

The truth, however, is that all of this is nothing more than fear mongering. Obama and his liberal friends want you to be frightened of losing your current health care coverage so that you will go along with their solution. The thing is, the solution being offered is the cause of the problem.

Obama claims that about 46 million Americans are not insured. No one bothers to ask why they have no insurance. It is assumed that these people want insurance but are unable to afford it or get it from an employer. The fact is that approximately 17.6 million of these 46 earn $50,000 or more a year and about 10 million earn more than $75,000 a year. People who earn this much tend to pay for their health care out of pocket. Therefore, they do not need insurance. Basically about 38% of these 46 million who are uninsured earn enough money to afford it, but choose not to have it. This 46 million uninsured is a number thrown around by politicians, Obama, and the media to gain sympathy from you.

The population of the United States is roughly 300 billion. The fact that 46 million people might not have health insurance is the least of our problems. The majority of Americans have health insurance whether it is through their employer, a private insurance company, or the government. There are a variety of reasons for why individuals do not have insurance. Affordability is at the bottom of the list. Most people do not carry health insurance for two reasons: they do not want it, or they don’t need it.

But here is a fact no one bothers to mention. Every American has access to health care. A person is never denied access to a doctor or a medical procedure because they don’t have insurance. The difference is, they pay for it directly out of their own pocket instead of waiting for a third party to cover the cost from money that they sent in over a period of time.

Whenever we purchase items from a store we pay for it directly right then and there. Why should medical care be any different? When you pay for medical care directly, you only pay for what you use and pay less than what you would through an insurance company or if you relied on the government. You are ultimately responsible for paying for your health care. It is your responsibility to go to the doctor when needed and then pay for it. It has never been the government’s responsibility to cover your medical costs. Such measures violate the U.S. Constitution and degrade individuals. It also robs us of you of your liberty.

Obama claims that universal health care will bring competitiveness to private insurance companies. This is a blatant lie. In every country that has had socialized medicine the private sector was destroyed, leaving people with only one option: the government’s program. The private sector has never been able to compete with the government. The private sector depends upon profit to stay in business. When the government steps in and says “free” the private sector disappears.

Obama claims that rising health care costs caused the deficit. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that this is absurd. What about the $700 billion stimulus bill that he passed back in January? How about the amount of spending that the government does every year with no regard for the fact that they do not have the money? How about all of the pork barrel spending that is snuck through on every bill that goes through Congress? All of this caused and adds to the deficit. If Congress and our current president cannot control their spending, the deficit will never get paid off, despite current health care costs.

The fact is, our nation is bankrupt. We have no money. The value of the dollar continues to fall. As a nation we continue to borrow more from China to pay for all of Congress’ spending. The two government run health insurance plans in this country are bankrupt. How can we as a nation afford a single payer system like what Canada has? We can’t.

People believe that Obama is pushing health care reform because he cares about them. Obama, like all politicians, does not care about anyone but himself. He doesn’t care about you or the fact that people are without health insurance. Obama sees this as an opportunity to seize more power and he is using it. If our Congress, and if Obama really cared about the people’s access and ability to pay for health care, they would be pushing for less government involvement. They would be pushing for an end to Medicare, an end to Medicaid, and for deregulation of the health care sector.

Here is another question: why are we moving towards universal health care when the countries that already have it are moving towards privatized medicine? We have had Medicare and Medicaid for about forty years. In that time they proved that government run health care does not work. Why is our government expanding these programs instead of getting rid of them?

In short there are five reason to ditch Universal healthcare in all of its forms:

1. Government run health care is unconstitutional

2. Government run health care does not work.

3. Government run health care drives up the cost of medicine and limits access

4. Countries with it are moving away from it.

5. This is the United States of America not Europe. It is time that we quit emulating Europe and be Americans with American innovations and American solutions.

This country was built by people who were fiercely independent, did not rely on the government for anything, solved their own problems, and did not bitch, whine or complain when things were not fair. They told the government where to stick. It’s time we do it again.

President Obama wants to make sure that every American has health coverage, provided by the government of course. This means universal health care. This idea is not new. Many in Congress have been pushing for socialized medicine for the past two decades, or more. Sweden and Great Britain were two of the first western countries to institute state run health care. They have had government run health care since 1948. Over the decades other nations such as, New Zealand, Australia, Cuba, and Canada have all instituted government run healthcare.
Sweden is often referred as a country that has the most equalization. It’s true, if you believe in equal results rather than equal opportunity. Sweden is the most socialist country in the world. And they have state run health care. Many people look to Sweden as an example for how a healthcare system should be run. After all they provide the best healthcare to all of their citizens. They have equal coverage, equal access, high quality care, a longer life expectancy than in the U.S., and their health care is free.
But if Sweden’s health system is so great, then why are they privatizing parts of it? The reality is their health system is fading. Proponents for universal care point out that Sweden’s experiment with profit driven health care is not working. They are right. But not because competition fails. The reason for its failure is that the bits of privatization in Sweden’s health care system are not truly private. They are still heavily regulated by the government.
Sweden only spends about 8.4% of their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on their health care. But GDP alone is not a measure of how well a country is performing. Health care in Sweden suffers from increase costs, lack of doctors, and long waiting lines. In a ten year period, 1980-1990, the cost of Sweden’s healthcare rose by 145%. Despite price controls on the cost of drugs, doctor visits, and medical procedures, the cost of healthcare in Sweden is increasing.
Sweden suffers from long waiting lists. Patients stand in long lines to see a doctor. Security guards are common in their clinics to ensure there are no riots. They also refuse to let new people enter if the clinic is full. Patients are denied newer, better medicines because they cost more than the older prescriptions. Patients are denied the option of paying for prescription drugs themselves because it would cause “unequal access”.
Great Britain was one of the first countries of western culture to institute nationalized healthcare. They have had it since 1948. The people there suffer from long lines, denied medical procedures, denied drugs, and inferior equipment. English hospitals are routinely over crowded causing a shortage of beds, which in turn means that patients are turned away. Overcrowded hospitals increase the risk of infections spreading from patient to patient. It is reported that at least 7,000 patients suffer from infections and that 5,000 of those die from them. One of the reasons for overcrowded hospitals is England’s attempt to cut the waiting lines. They have passed reforms to cut back on the time people spend waiting to have surgery or see a specialist. There are many stories about patients not receiving the care they need. Many cancer patients are unable to see a surgeon or receive the medication they need.
And then there’s Canada. Our neighbor to the north. Everyone talks about Canada’s health whether they are pro or con nationalization of health care. Canada spends about 10% of their GDP on health care. We see news reports about how Canadians love their health care system. They’re smiling. They cannot understand us Americans and why we resist such a great system. People only wait 30 minutes at a clinic to see a doctor. They don’t have to pay for the visit or the prescription. They don’t pay for surgery. Canadians do not pay for one cent of their healthcare needs. At least, this is what we are told. And this is what many people believe. The truth is, Canada’s health care is not free. It never was. Canadians do pay for their health care. They just pay for it indirectly through taxes.
At least 22% of all taxes collected go to health care in Canada. Canadians pay an income and sales tax and employer based premiums to generate revenue for their healthcare. In 2005 citizens from Ontario pay 40% of their tax dollars toward healthcare and the figure is on the rise. The costs are borne by the federal and provincial levels in Canada. But lately Canada’s federal government has had to cut back on how much they spend on healthcare. Much of the responsibility is being shifted to the provinces. Of all the industrialized countries that have universal healthcare, Canada spends the most. But it ranks at the bottom for access to healthcare, according to the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). “It is 17th out of 20 for its doctor/patient ratio—only 1.8 doctors per 1,000 citizens, 17th for availability of CAT scanners, and 18th for MRIs.” Here is a table of average wait times:

Wait Time (Weeks) Procedure Waiting For
16.5                                    Time between referral from a general practitioner & treatment
8.5                                      To see a radiation oncologist
5.2                                      For a CT scan
12.4                                    For and MRI
3.2                                      For an ultrasound
20                                       Time between seeing specialist to surgery for hip replacement (after waiting
13 weeks to see the specialist in the first place)

(Houston Kerri, Acces Denied: Canada’s Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims, December 2003, The Center For Civic, Family, and Social Progress Policy Perspectives, vol. 10, Issue 6. http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf (I put the figures in a table to make them easier to read.)

Canada also suffers from long lines, lack of access to newer and better technology, hospital beds, and prescriptions medication. However, Canada also suffers from a shortage of physicians. Doctors are leaving Canada. They cannot charge more than what the state allows for their services meaning that they are paid the same no matter how many patients they see or the quality of care they provide. Sometimes doctors have to send payment back to the government because they saw more patients than what the government mandated they could tend. As a result, doctors quit caring about their patients’ well-being. There’s no need to. Those physicians who truly want to help people have been prevented from doing so. In the 1990s roughly 10,000 Canadian doctors left the country.
On top of doctors leaving, there are few replacements graduating from medical schools. The Canadian government has put limits on the amount of enrollments for medical schools. Only 1,530 people graduated from Canadian medical schools in 2002. There are not enough doctors to replace those who leave or retire. Ontario alone claims that “nearly 80% of its regional communities are listed by the provincial government as being ‘underserviced’ due to physician shortages”.
Prescription drug coverage in Canada is no better. Drug prices are controlled by the state. Drugs are also approved by the government. This makes it difficult to get newer drugs on the market since in an effort to control cost the government will not approve them. These new drugs may be more effective, but they are also more expensive. Canadians only have access to the drugs allowed by the government. Even if they are willing to pay for the medicine themselves, they are not allowed to buy it. So, many Canadians come to the United States for their medicine. Another problem with mandated drugs by the state is that the government can change a person’s prescription to something more generic and cheaper without consulting the patient or the physician. Many Canadian are hospitalized because of a sudden change in their prescription and the side effects that occur. Drugs are not cheaper in Canada. They appear to be because of price controls, but their prices are higher than what we pay in the United States.