SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DAILY DIGEST FOR 6/9/10

Health Care Freedom Act Resurrected (Tennessee, Obamacare penalty provisions)

10th Amendment Center ^ | 6/7/2010 | Lesley Swann

Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:10:22 AM by Qbert

In a ninth inning push to protect Tennesseans from the penalty provisions of Obamacare, the state Senate made an unprecedented move to recall from committee SB2560, the companion bill to Rep. Susan Lynn’s Health Care Freedom Act (HB2622). If passed, HB2622 will write into law a policy statement for all Tennesseans that health care mandates or penalties for defying such mandates may not be carried out in the state of Tennessee. The bill is model legislation written by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in response to the passage of the federal health care mandate.

The Price to Pay for Health Care Reform

Catholic Advocate ^ | 6/9/2010 | Anne Hendershott

Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:59:15 AM by markomalley

As the Obama administration continues to clamp down on executive salaries at financial firms receiving government aid, the real money for executive salaries remains in the non-profit health care world. A 2008 Wall Street Journal study of tax exempt hospitals revealed that the average total compensation paid to top officials was $1.4 million. Some health care executives—especially those at Catholic health associations—make much more. But, we are seeing now that there is a price to pay.

Lloyd H. Dean, President/CEO of Catholic Healthcare West, a hospital system based in San Francisco, made more than 5.3 million in 2006—including the forgiveness of a $782,541 housing loan from his employer. Recognizing that hospitals stand to make even greater profits as more individuals are required to have medical insurance, Mr. Dean teamed with the Catholic Health Association’s Sr. Carol Keehan to lobby for Mr. Obama’s healthcare reform. In fact, Dean brought the resources of one of America’s largest hospital systems to help to shape the national health care reform debate. Their public campaign included a video highlighting the organization’s own town hall meetings, an advertising campaign which ran in major US media publications, as well as a Congressional outreach.

Reid Fights For Medicaid Funding

U.S. Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid ^ | June 9, 2010 | U.S. Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid

Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 7:17:14 PM by mdittmar

why are “americans” so opposed against any form of so called socialized health care?

I can think of several answers off the top of my head:

The Constitution of the United States established a national government of limited and enumerated powers. National healthcare is not one of those powers.

Putting the national government in charge of healthcare will create massive bureaucracies, requiring enormous tax burdens.

Government bureaucracies are less efficient at delivering goods and services than private enterprises. Consequently, a government health care system will end up costing more while delivery poorer service.

Nationalized healthcare will remove incentives for innovation in medicine.

A government health care system will provide statists endless excuses for meddling in the lifestyle choices of citizens.

In general, socialism is inefficient because it distorts the market, substituting political calculation for economic ones. It is also incompatible with personal freedom.

Well first thanks for your answer!
Well i do agree that some kind of “forced national health care” is against the so called “american dream”. I do agree that this really oposses everything the constitution stands for. But then again it´s really not all bad (has it flaws of course) . I mean come one it´s portrayed in the US like this would be the end of the world. It´s not! “We” have this here for example. (and “we” are not a bunch of commies ;-) but “forced” national helath care does not nessersary mean that there is no way to avoid it (I do agree the only way to avoid health care at all here would be to become a “homeless” but i guess this is not an option which people here on FR want to have :-)
But then again does this mean that your are forced to have it? NO! I live in “europe” and i have a private insurance (and i´m really happy with it). I would never “use” the so called socialized medizine. (Why should i?) No one forces me.
I´m forced to have an insurance company “that´s true (and open for discussion) But at the and i love “special” treatment and private clinics. And really NO ONE forces me to give this up. So for example i´m private insured and i´m living in a country with so called socialized health care.
(And i have never seen anything other than a “private “ hospital”
where i can chose my doctor and everything else).
So who says that “socilazized health care” means that everyone is forced to use it or has to pay for it?
Because this is not true!
greetings,

So who says that “socilazized health care” means that everyone is forced to use it or has to pay for it?

You have identified a crucial question: Is participation in the system voluntary or coerced?

Unfortunately, it is difficult to know how much freedom Obamacare will allow. The law itself is 2400 pages long; who can say what booby-traps are hidden there? Moreover, many issues were left to be decided by the 30 (or is it 100? 150?) new agencies to be created by the law.

My guess is that private fee-for-service health care will be severely limited, but not outlawed entirely. Already, many doctors are refusing to take Medicare or private medical insurance; that trend will likely continue. Hence, patients who are willing and able to pay cash will find physicians who are willing to work outside the government system. “Concierge” or “boutique” practices will probably increase. No doubt medical tourism will boom.

However, there are some worrisome signs. At least one state legislature has considered a law requiring doctors to accept Medicare. It is a short step from that to banning private cash-only medicine entirely.

Even if no one is forced to use Obamacare, everyone will be forced to pay for it. Income tax rates will go up next year; a VAT is being discussed. Some have floated the idea of confiscating individual retirement accounts. No matter how much money is squeezed out of the taxpayers, it will never be enough.

The bottom line: Obamacare will be a disaster unless we can stop it.

I don’t know that it’s correct to say that all Americans are opposed to any form of “socialized” health care. We already have Medicare, which is health care for our elderly. We already have Medicaid, which is health care for the poor. We also have charities.

Many of us here on FR believe that under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has certain responsibilities and state governments have certain responsibilities. Our federal government is supposed to have very limited responsibilities, primarily focused on international relations, the army/navy/air force/marines, etc.

States are supposed to have more general powers and are also supposed to be “sovereign” states, not simply subsidiaries of the federal government. Traditionally, state governments have been responsible for health (hospitals, licensing of medical professionals) & safety (police, fire departments). State governments and individual citizens are the ones who should be making the decisions about health insurance under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution - it’s not supposed to be a federal government responsibility.

Our state governments are supposed to be “laboratories of democracy”, meaning that states are supposed to be left free to experiment with solutions to problems for their individual states. What’s good for Maryland might not be good for Iowa. What’s good for Florida might not be good for Alaska. State governments are generally more “nimble” and it is (generally) easier to undo policies if they turn out to be a bad idea.

The ObamaCare legislation was based primarily on legislation from Massachusetts (also known as RomneyCare/MassCare). However, residents of Massachusetts have the highest health insurance premiums in the country and they also have longer waits in emergency rooms than before RomneyCare was implemented. Doctors are fleeing the state, because the legislation does nothing to address the underlying high costs of health care there. Doctors fleeing the state are causing doctor shortages, which leads to higher prices and longer waits for care.

So, there are Constitutional reasons why we oppose ObamaCare (not just its individual mandate). ObamaCare infringes upon state sovereignty. Before ObamaCare, if you didn’t like a particular state’s health insurance laws, you could always “vote with your feet” and move to a different state. Now we can’t do that.

The other reason is that we simply cannot afford it. Our national debt is rapidly approaching our GDP.

There are much cheaper ways of dealing with the problem of providing health care to those who need it but cannot afford it than ObamaCare.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.