A Nightmare In The New Health Bill, Little Publicized
Posted: Thursday, December 24, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Many have heard one thing or another concerning the fate of Medicare under the present legislation about to be passed by congress. What is actually there is enough to turn the country upside down when examined in it's proper perspective.
There are those who have spoken of "Death Squads" for the elderly, so that a committee could determine whether or not one could receive treatment. If the committee were to decide the person had no more useful life left in society. That sounds extremely dreadful to think that others could dictate just what you can and cannot have in the way of treatment, when their primary objective would be that of slashing the budget deficit. Well, the proponents of the bill continue to horse-laugh at that and make believe there is nothing like that in mind. Let's see just what is in the offing.
There is a provision in the bill which establishes an "Independent Medicare Advisory Board". Now, one can horse-laugh, all they want, this is nothing short of a panel which, if they so desire and see that they must to insure the savings set for them, could refuse service to just about anything in Medicare. That is only slightly short of being "Death Squad". Now, to make this even more unpalatable, it also states that it cannot be abolished, except by a two thirds vote by the Senate. Two-Thirds! This sort of thing is unprecedented. It is very likely that it is unconstitutional, but with another or two liberal Supreme Court Justices, that would not matter.
I wonder how many voters in the Democratic states are aware of this? I do not doubt one whit, that after the next couple of elections, 2010 and 2012, the majority of power in Washington will be changed, but to have to overcome such idiocy with a two thirds majority is quite a bit to hope for.
In addition to the above, there is language in the bill allowing federal funds for abortion, even though it also is somewhat ambiguous, and some say that it will not pay for abortions, it will. And this particular item is opposed by voter polls of almost 3 to 1. It is little wonder that, within the past weeks, three Democratic congressmen have determined they will not run for re-election when their term is up and one other has now changed his affiliation to the Republican party. The Democrats are playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver.
This Article has been viewed 313 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)So many parts of this bill are unconstitutional that it will never become law. If it does pass the mandate to require everyone to buy insurance will be found unenforceable. Then without the healthy young people subsidizing the old we will just have the unhealthy enrolled. This will become exactly like Maine and Massachusetts. Well written Joel.Thanks for reading and commenting Jim. It just looks bad, all the way around. I think we are headed for deep deep troubles.
Mr. Lewis I would ask you to look really look at what nationalized health care has done to the economies of every single country it has been tried in. The average return on investment in the health insurance business is less than 6%. Every time the government gets involved in something they screw it up. Social security, medicare and medicade are going to bankrupt this country. Right now every single person in America owes (depending on your source) around $40,000 on the national debt. Obama is spending money that will take generations to pay back. If you really want to see your children living with a lower standard of living you enjoyed then full speed ahead. If you want to fix the health care system then fix tort reform and allow interstate sales of insurance. It is that simple. The free market will fix it if allowed to do so."Every time the government gets involved in something they screw it up."When you bring Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan into the picture, you couldn't be more right!Jim, when I hear that tired "tort reform" argument I have to roll my eyes. IMalpractice insurance is but a fraction of the liability of insurance companies. That tort reform argument is simply a Republican boogieman, their way of protecting big business as usual, while conveniently sidestepping the real issues of affordable health care. The fact is the Republicans have brought nothing substantial to the table of health insurance reform, nor are they especially interested in better health care for Americans who can't afford it.What makes health insurance expensive has very, very little to do with tort reform. Anyone who says so is probably making their living off somebody else's back. I have no idea what that 6% figure means you are talking about, but it doesn't jive with the life styles of the people I know who work in the insurance business. It's a very, very profitable industry.Gregory, I have to disagree with you on the Republicans not offering anything substantive. The Republicans did indeed offer some good ideas...not a national overhaul and takeover as the Dems where fully intent on doing. They could have done two things which would have lowered insurance coevrage costs quite well, the tort reform is one (and it is indeed important) and the other is to do away with the state restrictions and let all companies compete across state lines. Competition would have then held prices in a competitive range. But this government takover they are about to pull off is going to break the nation's back financially and I promise you the services will be much less. I'm old and Medicare is a very serious matter to me. But all the rest of you fellows are going to be in this position in a few years, and you'll see. Anf the ONLY reason you can't see any action on tort reform is the huge sums they contribute to the politicians. More corruption, in my view.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.