[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] Fair ~ 36°F  
High: 64°F ~ Low: 38°F
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2014

The right choice?

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Thursday's decision from the Supreme Court on ObamaCare got both sides of the political aisle talking - in some cases screaming - as was expected regardless of the outcome. Someone wasn't going to be happy. In this case, it's the conservatives and Tea Party folks who feel they came up on the short end of the stick.

Guess it depends on which side of center you lean toward as to whether or not Thursday was a day for celebration or disappointment.

Personally I've been disappointed with the whole thing. I think the proposed plan is too intrusive and the idea of the government being involved in the area of medical insurance seems a bit far reaching and certainly not in line with the notion of private sector, business support. It will put the government in direct competition with private insurance and when you're the agency charged with making policy, it certainly seems like an unfair advantage.

That said, this country undoubtedly needs a health care overhaul. Too many people slipping through the cracks. We need to focus on preventative care to try and stop some of the more financially problematic conditions that force folks to seek emergency care down the road.

What bothers me the most, however, is the lack of honesty in the process to begin with.

When President Obama originally talked about revamping health care, we were told one thing, and given another. We heard about open door policies and televised discussions for the purpose of transparency. The American people got none of it. Instead it was all done behind closed doors like it was some kind of dirty little secret.

What should have happened?

Well, experts in each field impacted by health care -- from insurance, to pharmaceuticals, to research companies, to doctors, nurses, surgeons, specialists, dentists, chiropractors, medical administrators, etc. -- should have been brought together in a bipartisan fashion and asked to work together and come up with a list of areas to be fixed within their own particular area of interest. Then, still working together, they should have been charged with coming up with acceptable and commonly beneficial solutions and programs to better offer affordable care to the American people.

But that didn't happen. It's kind of what we were promised, but the reality was the government stepped in, took over and told us what IT was going to do to make everything all right.

Well, the Supreme Court ruled and now the line is clearly drawn for the November General Election.

The President has vowed to implement the health care law over the next several years. Challenger Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it and start from scratch if he is elected Obama's successor.

The decision about whether America wants the Affordable Care Act will essentially be left in the hands of the voters come November - just where it should have been in the first place.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on spencerdailyreporter.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I generally agree with you, except instead of having a panel of "experts" in front of some government panel deciding on how to "fix" things, the government should get completely out of the way. Completely and utterly deregulate the entire industry and eliminate programs and subsidies that artifically inflate costs (all of them), give preferencial treatment to politically favored groups (such as tax-preferred status for full-time employed individuals in purchasing insurance), and create incentives antithetical to true doctor/patient relationships (FDA approvals, mandated coverages, and filing mounds of paperwork showing compliance with always changing regulations from governments at all levels), and draconian licensing procedures that artificially restrict supply,where health is actually the number one concern. Only then can costs for the scarce good of healthcare be realigned to reality and allowed to come back down to more realistic levels, especially with a move away from third party payment of costs for non-catastrophic or major procedures.

Of course this will never happen, and all in all Republicans should be happy about this since they laid the groundwork for it. Whether it was Republican Part D Medicare, SCHIP which was part of a budget "compromise," or Bush's SCOTUS appointment of Roberts who was the deciding vote on declaring a penalty "technically" a tax, a vital tenet of fascism, "conservatives" were at the forefront of intervening in the healthcare market, removing consumer sovereignty and distorting the market. Only liberty and capitalism will fix healthcare, and certainly neither Willard nor Obamacare is the answer.

-- Posted by jlees on Mon, Jul 2, 2012, at 10:40 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Randy Cauthron
One Man's Perspective