What concerns most Americans is what Obamacare leads to tomorrow, not necessarily what is being proposed today.
President Obama doesn’t address this. For today’s first step in health care reform may very well be the baby boomers last step of tomorrow.
Very few are debating ‘doing nothing’ with health care reform which is what Obama is saying is ‘truly scary.’
Health care must be addressed today, but it must be done with common sense, not with dramatic revolution.
Programs that make sense should be phased in with a transition that works in concert with our economy.
And, as we know our economy is not in the best state of affairs.
Now, as the President continues to take his message to the people as he does so well, he is overplaying his hand because of the sensitivity of the words being used by both sides on this issue. Let’s for a moment talk about ‘death panels.’
I want to talk about them because the President has selected to talk about them. He says that the provision that has caused the uproar would only authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, living wills, hospice care and other issues, if the patient wants it.
These types of discussions come about because of words Obama didn’t make very clear by proposing a bill from the White House, but allowed a House, and a Senate Bill, that has yet to be drafted, to define thoughts, motivations, and words allowed to creep into legislation that the President is left defending.
Let us get back to that testy issue of a ‘death panel.’ Obama makes reference to ‘end-of-life care, living wills’ — I thought this was a legal thing that people formalized with an attorney, not necessarily discussed, with a doctor, who was treating a patient?
Is it any wonder how the subject of ‘death panel’ arises? It has to do with economy. It has to do with fixing what is broke in Medicare. In the past it was a lawyer thing not a doctor thing when we talked about ‘end-of-life or a living will.’
But it is this Administration that has inserted it into health care reform – which suggests limited care. Yes that’s what we see in socialized medicine in other countries.
The President tells us that ‘health care is really hard’ and he says he is a ‘reasonably dedicated student to this issue’ and goes on to say he’s ‘got a lot of really smart people around him who’ve been working on this for months now.’ Well, Mr. President, I would suggest that if the issue is so big, months are a very short time to work on such a big project.
He says there is ‘no perfect painless silver bullet out there that solves every problem,’ – well, then, I would suggest not using a shotgun to solve the issue.
“I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in our health care ,” he doesn’t “want insurance companies’ bureaucrats meddling in our health care either” — what is it that he wants?
Government bureaucrats haven’t done very well with the Post Office, Amtrak, Medicare or Medicaid and the people know that.
It seems to me we need health care evolution not revolution.
There is a simple word that resolves the issue – compromise. Oh, bipartisanship might also help.
Oh, I’m listening, Mr. President. I’m on your list, I read your emails and those of David Alexrod’s, if that’s any consolation.
1 user commented in " Obamacare Today May Be The Baby Boomers Last Step Of Tomorrow "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackt’s refreshing to read considered and rational opinion about anything on “health care reform”.
The sad reality of this is that we will surely wind up with some kind of change, and that it will most likely be less than helpful.
I’m not convinced that “bi-partisan” anything would be beneficial. Republicans had all three houses and did nothing with this or other issues. They continue to allow R.I.N.O.s to linger in the senate and house which will give the facade of “bi-partisanship” to Democrat issues.
For whatever reason- I won’t speculate as to motives- it seems the Democrats want to move so far to the left that it’s a wonder that their multiple left turns haven’t resulted in an effective right turn. (Three left turns is a right turn- humor, friends). Anyone who has read the communist manifesto could argue quite reasonably we’re already there, so saying we’re becoming a communist country would be stating the obvious after the fact.
The country is broke- and has been so arguably since the removal of any gold or silver standard. Old dollar bills- look this up youngsters- used to state that they were redeemable for one dollar worth of silver at any Federal Reserve Bank. Now they don’t say that, just some tripe about being legal tender. Our coins are no longer precious metal- but they are still shiny and have the ridges on the edge of the coin to indicate if the edge has been shaved in order to remove some of the precious metal for unearned wealth. When I was young I was told that this was so blind people could tell the difference between a penny (copper, not that valuable) and a dime (supposedly silver, but now just nickel). Why else would the center of old quarters be silver all the way through if you look at the edge, but now they have copper (remember the penny?) in the middle.
The debt is so mind bogglingly large it’s not really accurate to say that they are spending too much taxpayer money on anything. It’s already been spent, now we’re spending the funny money that comes off the printing press. Between the sleazy accounting done to hide the real debt and the way it’s being spent now, does anyone really think America will pay off her bills? It’s not that we don’t work hard, or produce a lot. The problem is that we have representation without taxation. Sure, the “poor” pay taxes, but with what? They pay it with the money the government gives them; paying taxes with tax payer money isn’t really paying taxes, is it? But these people’s votes count, and by the way, they’re voting for more money for themselves.
So here we leap off the cliff into “reform”, with bills that are thousands of pages long. If you’ve ever read any of these laws these folks write, they are very sloppy. I don’t mean handwriting; I mean that they don’t define the terms they use. They use vague language instead of definite terms often, and then leave the determination of all of this sloppy work to regulations (Code of Federal Regulations). These guide the interpretation of the laws, since they can’t just be simple and forthright. With some versions of this bill already numbering thousands of pages long, to suggest it would be difficult to understand would be an understatement. To theorize that it would be subject to corruption, bureaucracy and waste would be pretty safe especially when taken in the context of existing government programs. Most of these have two things in common: they are broke and they failed miserably to solve the problem they were ostensibly crafted to solve. It’s doubtful that this “reform” would be different than any other “reform” in either respect.
So, solutions? Yelling at people doesn’t help. Blaming previous administrations doesn’t help. Why not less government instead of more?
Insurance companies cancel your policy as soon as you get sick? Fine- make it illegal to do so, and it won’t happen anymore.
Insurance companies deny you coverage because of preexisting conditions? Fine- make that illegal too. Why not? We left the constitution in the dust a long time ago; if that was a concern there would be a lot less involvement of government in this or any other issue.
People can’t afford premiums? Fine, just pay it for them for a year or so. It’s just an extension of an existing concept of welfare; it’s just earmarked for healthcare. When was the congress afraid of earmarks?
Perhaps you think I need correction, or that I’m too pessimistic. I welcome correction, and I believe in the power of the individual despite the government’s chokehold. I would just rather see what could be done without the constraint of government, wouldn’t you?
Leave A Reply