Gov't-controlled healthcare is not the answer

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 Comments

Do we really want government bureacracy to come between our families and our doctors? I know I don't.

The Obama administration is bent on shoving government-run healthcare down the throats of the American people, whether we like it or not. People need to understand that "universal healthcare" does not mean "free healthcare." It doesn't even mean "accessible healthcare." What it means is government-controlled healthcare. Each and every American will pay for it with significantly higher taxes, and many will pay with their lives as a result of delayed / denied care.

If you believe the claims that those with private insurance will be able to keep it with no change, you need to see this:

The goal will be to drive private insurance out of the market. One way to do that is by making it cost-prohibitive. Obama is open to proposals to tax employer-provided health insurance benefits for the first time ever. Government-run healthcare would, of course, not have such a tax. This will effectively tax the private health insurance industry out of business in my opinion, because most families will not be able to take on the additional tax burden of maintaining their private health insurance, on top of their premiums and the already increased tax burden that's coming in order to pay for the government's out-of-control spending.

Obama keeps talking about healthcare reform in terms of "cutting costs" and yet, clearly by the way he and Congress are struggling to come up with the funding for this, it's going to significantly increase costs to the American taxpayers, not decrease them.

One proposal to cover the added cost is to impose a VAT tax, or national sales tax. It is worth noting that (1) this would signifantly increase the cost of literally everything, (2) it would be a tax increase on every American, and (2) every other nation that has a VAT tax does not also have a national income tax - it's either / or, not both. And yet, our government would impose both on us, which would cripple our already struggling economy.

As a final thought, I refer you to one of many articles about what's being called "Dealergate," controversy over how decisions were made regarding which Chrysler dealers would be closed and which would remain open. The questions surround whether politics played a role in making those decisions, and neither the White House or Chrysler has responded to requests to explain how they selected which dealers would be closed.

Do we really want to even open ourselves up to the possibility of life-and-death medical decisions regarding who gets care (and when) and who doesn't in the hands of the government? Do we want to take a chance on those decisions potentially being influenced by politics? If we move to a single-payer system, as Obama and others would like to, where is the choice for the American people? Where are the options? What alternative would you or your family have if denied care by the government?

Consider this - people in countries with socialized medicine such as Canada and Britain have one last resort when their government-controlled healthcare fails to provide adequate care, or even denies life-saving treatment. They turn to the United States. Our healthcare system as it stands today is the best in the world. It is by no means perfect, and certainly some aspects are in need of reform. But even those without medical insurance or the ability to pay are not turned away - ER's will treat them in an emergency, and there are many charitable foundations set up to help families in need. Everyone will benefit if we focus healthcare reform on targeting specific areas that need improvement rather than destroying the entire system and replacing it with a government-controlled bureaucracy that offers no options.

For more information, visit Patients United Now and Faces of Government Healthcare.

Links to this post