Opposing Health Care Reform

For some reason the President of the United States and a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Congress believe that it is imperative to "fix" the healthcare industry, specifically how we pay for healthcare in the U.S. immediately. There are a few problems with this idea that the healthcare industry needs fixing. First, it isn't an emergency. Secondly, their fix does not actually affect cost. And lastly, the government has a poor record when it comes to fixing anything.

Why does everyone think this is an emergency? Last year I was told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were too expensive. Now I hear nothing except the overwhelming cost of healthcare. Last November I heard that greedy Wall Street bankers were responsible for the financial downturn. Now they have been forgotten and we can't address the downturn without fixing healthcare. It's all very confusing. The U.S. healthcare industry is one of the most dynamic and vital healthcare industries in the world today. It is also very expensive. That is the price of having the best; it costs the most. The bills that I have seen in congress do not go into effect for four more years. How is this an emergency again? With all of this misdirection, considering the speed with which the Democrats are trying to move this through the process and considering the fact that healthcare makes up a large percentage of our overall economy, wouldn't it be advisable to slow down and make any reforms we enact appropriate and correct?

If cost is a problem, why don't these bill affect cost? Most of the proposals I have seen don't affect cost, they change who is paying for the healthcare. The president and Democrats in Congress talk about 47 million American's who are uninsured, and that we need a public option. Don't we already have these? What is Medicaid and Schipp for? Why don't these 47 million uninsured fit into either of those two programs? If you want to lower the cost of healthcare and healthcare insurance, make the process more efficient and less burdensome on doctors. This will allow them to lower prices and reduce cost. Just making the government pay for healthcare does not necessarily reduce cost.

Ever been to the post office? The post office, a government run entity has reported that they are 8 billion dollars in the red this year. How are their private competitors FedEx and UPS faring? Both or them are posting profits and they are burdened with fees the USPS isn't such as corporate taxes and parking tickets, both of which are free to the USPS. What about Amtrak? They wouldn't survive without federal government subsidies. Medicare and Social Security are schedule to be in default within the next twenty years on their present course. Do these two programs illustrate competence by our government run programs? Less not more government intrusion is needed to make healthcare affordable.
Real reform would include at a minimum tort and malpractice suit reform, the ability to buy and sell healthcare insurance across state lines, and greater choice by healthcare insurance consumers in terms of the types of coverage they can get. A bill that covers those areas would mean greater, more effective change than the one dimensional, single payer options that would wreck the greatest healthcare industry in the world today.
 

With unemployment in some state reaching a double digit percentage is this really a good time to consider adding new taxes such as those associated with cap and trade onto the backs of small businesses. Manufacturing jobs are already leaving the country at such an alarming rate due to the fact that American companies simply cannot compete with the low labor standards and lax environmental policies of other nations. Is this really a smart move to do this cap and trade bill on a unilateral basis? I think the answer is a resounding no. The fact of the matter is that many Democratic politicians such as Daniel Mongiardo, a current U.S. Senate candidate and Lt. Governor of Kentucky have come out in opposition to this bill due to the fact that will increase expenses on companies who work in the coal industry who Mongiardo represents.

The truth is that coal production creates jobs for poor people within Eastern Kentucky and that is a large reason why coal production needs to be continued. Coal also produces carbon, but in a region where you don't have many natural resources to begin with you have to maintain what little industry you can. The truth is that the Waxman-Markey bill creates more incentives for an industry like wind energy while discouraging certain carbon sequestration coal plants like the ones being built in Northwest Arkansas. Wind energy and the transportation of all the equipment it takes to produce it actually wastes more resources than it creates. On the other hand carbon sequestration facilities in Northwestern Arkansas will actually create jobs. The Sierra Club of Arkansas has already come out in opposition to plans which build such plants. Of course the people who work at the Sierra Club of Arkansas are currently employed.

Now the question should also come to the mind of Congressional Democrats as to whether they want to maintain their strong majority within the House of Representatives. The Democrats have been winning within districts that traditionally have a conservative tilt to them. It will be very hard for a person like Walt Minnick to win re-election in the first district of Idaho as a Democrat if Waxman-Markey become law. It would also be hard for another freshman representative like Alan Grayson to win re-election given that he represents a district that is heavily dependent upon Disney World for jobs. The fact of the matter is that Disney World omits its fair share of carbon as well.