TEN REASONS THAT GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE IS WRONG FOR
1) It would take from us our right to keep our health records private, and to decide for ourselves our own health care.
2) For Americans who happen to be against the government paying for abortions, The Capps Amendment unfortunately requires the establishment of at least one plan covering elective abortions in every federally-subsidized exchange, and it gives the HHS Secretary the authority to include abortion coverage in the public plan. President Obama must not have read the bill, for he continues to deny this provision, saying that it is we who are "bearing false witness". Maybe Obama is just plain prevaricating, or at least parsing the language of the bill, for it says that only the portion of the government money coming from the patient's premium will be used for the abortion. Say what? It is still government money, of course, and would probably cost more than the small premium paid by many.
3) The feds will have the power, via this law, to determine the following things for our MDs, for changes to the plan are permitted from all the new commissions and boards, and the following have already been suggested by those who are developing the plan:
a) the salary they may make (general practitioners would be paid the same as any other specialty, regardless of money and time spent perfecting their expertise), partly because we need more general practitioners, particularly in rural areas (page 127). Page 124 stipulates that there shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate set by the government..
b) just who will be allowed to go to medical school (diversity of gender and race being the primary factor, not intelligence). Since females either practice part time, to a much larger degree, and/or retire early, for instance, the pool of physicians will dwindle.
c) just where in the United States the physician will be paid the most to set up practice
d) through the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, as well as the Health Choices Administration, the actual care the patient may receive as, for instance, in parts of Section 121:
e) government surveillance of doctors' actions via The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology wherein unauthorized private care given will be illegal, punishable by high fines and imprisonment
3) The government rules will force many current physicians to retire early, for they did not become doctors in order to work for the government. It will also, because it contains a provision to further reduce reimbursements to doctors and hospitals for Medicare and Medicaid, cause some doctors and some hospitals to close their doors.
4) It will greatly reduce highly qualified prospects from applying to medical school in the first place, for a doctor’s ability to heal patients without government interference and guidance, and get paid appropriately for doing so while maintaining a capitalistic, private practice will be eliminated. Thus, the medical school students of the future could be chosen from a potentially inferior pool of applicants, endangering our care when we do see a physician.
5) Because of the preceding "rules" from the government and their unintended consequences, there will be fewer doctors and even fewer good doctors to care for us. The Congress, of course, has exempted itself from its’ own wonderful plan. Many more millions of people will be getting insurance, including all the illegal aliens who currently drain our resources with their care and who have not been excluded in this legislation. This will occur at a time when we will have fewer doctors and hospitals to care for them, necessitating rationing..... even if our government were not trying to ration care, which they clearly are. To reduce Medicare reimbursement at the same time that we have an enormously growing number of seniors in
6) It will require many thousands more government workers to man the many government boards and panels required to actually oversee all this. Another new entity will be the Health Choices Administration, a independent agency in the Executive Branch of the Government, ruled by a "Commissioner" . This Administration will have many functions, the last one listed being open-ended by describing "such additional functions as may be specified in this division". Yes, read it for yourself on page 42. "Data collection", which may be shared with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will be expected, to "protect consumers and prevent disparities in health and health care, don't you know (described on page 43). Oh! That’s right! It is this President's plan - more government, fewer private jobs.
7) The government has clearly proven that it cannot run Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid (or even a
8) It just plain costs too much, and will bankrupt our country, which should never try to "afford" it. Taking money from the very richest of us cannot fund this program and its' government bureaucracy. Well - of course - we can just make ALL Americans work for the government, the liberal left's dream (inch by inch - one law at a time). If single-payer legislation is passed, it will have opened the door to the next planned government take-over, and once passed, this legislation will be almost impossible to rescind. Think Cap-and-Trade.....
9) It is in direct conflict with Capitalism, which has made
10) What this government should be doing is what anyone would support: finding a way to insure or care for those 12 million or so who cannot insure themselves - and leaving the rest of us alone! I say 12 million, for this number removes the millions of illegal immigrants, those who are only temporarily uninsured, those who are eligible for and have not signed up for S-Chip and Medicaid, and those who turn down employer offered insurance (choosing instead to spend their money on other things such as travel, big screen televisions, cell phones, or a new car, perhaps). Of course, when any of these people get sick or injured, they know they can't be turned down for care in any hospital. Guess who pays for these people's care? Perhaps "insurance" should not be the goal at all. Instead, being cared for when sick should be and currently is the standard. Our government should be the insurer of last resort – not the first.
A few sensible laws could reform the current insurance programs, and have been suggested by some conservatives in Congress: allow small businesses to band together to gain insurance as a group for their employees; allow insurance policies to be sold across state lines, thus increasing competition; allow some to purchase only catastrophic, high-deductible insurance while they pay for their everyday health care needs out of pocket; encourage Health Savings Accounts, carrying tax advantages, for the payment of individual insurance and doctor’s visits; equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits; disallow insurance companies from dropping insurance on sick patients; force insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions, even though that coverage may cost more (perhaps offering a government tax credit for the extra premium amount); and enact tort reform to end the devastating lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These initiatives would solve some of our problems without dismantling our valued Free Market System.
Remember this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take from you everything you have".