Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:29 AM PDT by joanie-f
One of the loudest, and most oft-repeated, reasons given by our elitists in Washington for the need to dramatically overhaul the most effective and efficient healthcare system in the history of mankind is that healthcare in America is too expensive.
I have read countless analyses of the bill by those who have at least attempted to read it. And nowhere in H.R. 3200 -- at least to my knowledge -- is tort reform addressed. Tort reform should sit on the top of the list of remedies for our high healthcare costs. Reducing jury awards would reduce malpractice insurance premiums. Reducing malpractice insurance premiums would reduce physician and hospital costs. And reducing physician and hospital costs would have a dramatic effect on the overall cost of healthcare in America.
Why, then, is tort reform a non-issue? Put simply: Congress is in the pocket of the trial lawyers. They can demonize the insurance industry. They can demonize drug companies. They can insinuate that physicians perform unnecessary surgeries in order to inflate their bottom line. But where are their rants against the mountains of frivolous malpractice lawsuits that are not only adding dramatically to the overall cost of healthcare, but are also driving thousands upon thousands of good doctors out of business?
(*crickets*)
Trial lawyers are a sacred cow. The anti-capitalist elites pick and choose their self-created enemies of the people with power-based skill.
I have determined to read in its entirety H.R. 3200, not so that I can join the crusade to derail the abomination popularly known as the healthcare reform bill – although I certainly will do my best in that regard – but simply because I believe that it may be among the most important (this time in an infamous sense) piece of legislation ever deliberated upon in the history of our republic. I want to know what it contains before my family and I become unwilling, but inevitable, victims of its toxins.
I say ‘inevitable’ since the limitations this bill places on citizen choices for private health insurers (i.e., the ability to change from one private insurer to another, or the ability to alter an existing policy) are virtually non-existent. Combining that infringement on our liberties with the fact that government-care premiums will undercut private health insurers, it is just a matter of time before the American people, and American business, have no choice but to submit completely to a government healthcare monopoly in which bureaucrats ... many of them unelected and unaccountable to the electorate ... will be making life and death decisions for us all.
I have been reading for about a week now and am up to page 200 (of 1,017). I wish there were 100 hours in a day ... or that the bill were significantly more straightforward and didn’t require six readings of each paragraph. Reading this monstrosity is slightly more uncomfortable than repeatedly sticking oneself in the eye with a hot poker. The verbiage is an acute example of overkill, and yet the intent of most of it is still nebulous.
I have spent hours on some of the sections – reading certain paragraphs over half a dozen times because their intent is so unclear – and I often come up with more questions than answers.
For instance, one example (of countless):
Upon the urging of a friend, I temporarily skipped ahead to page 424 which tackles ‘Advanced Care Planning Consultation’. I did that because so many conservative bloggers are claiming that the ‘end of life planning’ in that section is euthanasia-related.
I found that the section apparently amends the Social Security Act, in that it offers a Medicare-covered ‘advanced care planning consultation’ every five years. Yet I cannot find anywhere in the section a reference to whether this ‘consultation’ is voluntary or mandatory (as some are reporting). It would seem to me that that stipulation is of some importance.
Such grey areas are extraordinarily dangerous because the bill is so convoluted and complicated that, were it to become law, I can envision many instances where interpretations would wind up in court (and it is rife with interpretation-inviting wording), and the results would depend on which activist judges were to render the decisions – with alarming precedents begin set all along the way, of course.
I actually concur with John Conyers’ opinion that it is a gargantuan task to read this bill – but it would require significantly longer than his 'two days' to do (I would estimate, conservatively, a good week, at eight solid hours a day). And even then a conscientious reader would have a mile-long list of let-me-get-this-straight questions to set before an attorney.
The difference between me (and you, dear reader) and Congressman Conyers, though, is that the dishonorable Mr. Conyers is paid to read and understand the legislation on which he votes. His Michigan constituents expect him to have a working knowledge of bills that he supports and votes to include in the law of the land.
I truly doubt that any of the 535 people who dare to call themselves our ‘leaders’ in the House and Senate will expend the time and effort to read through this entire bill. So, in a truly representative republic, in which those representatives take their ‘public servant’ role seriously, it seems to me there are two alternatives:
(2) Wait to vote on the bill until you have read, and understood, everything it contains
Or, better yet, our ‘leadership’ might want to re-read (or perhaps read for the first time?) the United States Constitution, whose over-riding emphasis is on limited government and individual liberty -- and which clearly specifies the minimal role of the federal government.
Our Founders were very specific in the parameters they defined as the powers of the federal government. Its powers consisted of those powers that the individual citizen, or the states, could not efficiently perform themselves, such as providing for the common defense of the nation (i.e., securing the borders perhaps?), ensuring unhindered, safe trade on the high seas, crafting treaties with foreign governments on behalf of the republic, regulating interstate commerce ...
Our Constitution states that the American citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare ... or many of the other ‘rights’ that our government has convinced us were bestowed upon us by God (and they have convinced us of this simply in order to incrementally become godlike themselves, in order to ensure a kind of perverted ‘equality’ in achieving theses faux-‘rights’) ... is not enumerated, either literally or by insinuation, in the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness vision.
Healthcare is a good, and a service, not a right. It is something a citizen is expected to earn. And, if a citizen is incapable of earning that good/service, then, in a moral society, private entities will work to pick up the slack. Genuine liberty always results in an increase in human charity, which in turn promotes self-reliance. Government programs for those in need destroy charitable organizations and foster dependency. Trouble is, in America 2009, goods and services are gradually morphing into rights. And with each successive addition to the list of 'rights' comes an increase in the dictatorial power of the federal bureaucracy.
Many a power that should have remained in the hands of the people and/or the states (see the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people) has been usurped by the elitists in the White House and on Capitol Hill. Not only have they taken our liberties from us, but they are now dictating, extra-Constitutionally, tyrannical boundaries on those liberties that remain, and they intend to enforce their illegal laws with a fascist ferocity that would have rendered Mussolini green with envy.
As far as I am aware there has not been a Constitutional amendment that permits the federal government to:
(2) force an employer to provide a specific kind of healthcare for his employees (let alone micro-manage that policy down to the last dotted i and crossed t).
(3) designate a federal bureaucrat, or committee, to determine accessibility of healthcare options to various segments of the citizenry
(4) force private healthcare plans (read: free market businesses) to enroll certain clients
(5) use public money to pay for insurance for some, citizens and non-citizens
(6) require government access to personal health records
(7) dictate payment limits for healthcare services
(8) require the citizenry to purchase insurance
(9) place ‘employment obligations’, dictating fields of study, on the states
and on and on, ad infinitum ...
I defy anyone to find anything in that precious document that permits the federal government to limit our freedoms, and impose the draconian requirements and penalties on the separate and sovereign states, individuals and businesses, as outlined in this legislation. The Tenth Amendment strictly prohibits all of the above.
Here is the President’s oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Here is the House and Senate’s oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
America has been betrayed by her leadership. Our ‘public servants’ are introducing blatantly unconstitutional legislation that will have toxic, liberty-robbing, quality-of-life-altering ramifications far into the future. The legislation is so filled with draconian usurpations of power that even those ‘representatives’ who will eventually vote on the finalized bill are freely admitting that they cannot reasonably be expected to familiarized themselves with its contents.
And they claim to be our ‘public servants’.
With every stroke of the pen, and every refusal to hold fast to their oath of office, they are declaring themselves enemies of the principles upon which this republic was founded. It is increasingly falling to the people to resurrect the Constitution and see that it is returned to its former pre-eminence. Ignorance of our roots and apathy that has kept us from holding our elected representatives accountable have led us to this place.
It’s time for outrage.
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights ... from A Republic, If You Can Keep It
~ joanie
They should realize that at some point the threats will be to hunt them down and dispatch them like the mad dogs they have become.
Even the Republicans who are using their face time to protest this bill are saying, "we've got to pass some kind of bill." Why? Can't they just vote "no"?
Thanks for the kind words, MM. And I agree with your assessment of the average citizen’s Constitution savvy. :(
~ joanie
Thanks for the kind words, PG, and (even moreso) for the excellent Bastiat quote. I have it filed away for future use.
~ joanie
Amen!
That is the most maddening thing about this entire travesty. And it is something the leftists sneak by the 'conservatives' consistently. They start with a completely irrational, unacceptable bill, and then 'water it down' to something slightly less irrational, and just as unconstitutional, pat the 'conservatives' on the head, and brainwash them into believing they have won a victory.
Such victories lend new and grotesque dimension to the term 'Pyrrhic'!
None of these enormous bailouts should have been compromised either. Failing businesses should have been allowed to fail. People who cannot afford their homes should not have been granted the privilege of having others pay their mortgages at the point of a gun. And whatever is wrong with healthcare can be solved with far less than a complete government overhaul of the entire system.
But then how would the long-planned oligarchy be put in place? Aye, there's the rub.
Best to you and yours, meadsjn, in these troubling times ...
~ joanie
~ joanie
Collectivists of a feather...
(I know when I've been bested.) :)
~ joanie
Heck no! I liked your picture much better than the one I was using so I STOLE it. LOL!
Well, let me start with another, well done! If history holds any lessons, it's that if we as a nation are not yet lost, we will be soon enough. Our Founders, whether by accident, extreme effort or divine guidance, gave us a self governing document unequaled in human history. When our leaders, often with the tacit approval of an ill informed or complacent populace began using it to wipe their feet on, our fate was probably sealed.
If we are to recover our freedom, I'm very nearly convinced we will have to fight for it. We are no better than our Founders who were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor; not so much for themselves but to create a new nation for those that would follow. Unless and until we are willing to take the same risks AND our leaders know it, we will never even have a chance at redemption. For my part, I'm preparing for whatever may come. May God help us.
A "Party of NO" is exactly what we need.
Thank you for adding your eloquent (as always) insights, and best to you and yours as we face an uncertain future with proud memories of the America that once was.
~ joanie
If every republican would send just that one sentence to his senators and representatives we would at least be able to say we raised our voices in unison. Whether that would make one whit of difference in their votes is yet another matter.
~ joanie
Thank you so very much for your excellent essay-post, dear joanie-f! I strongly agree that tort reform is the key to reducing health costs.
Requiring people to carry *insurance* without permitting them to assess their own level of risk from health and other factors is another tax on the productivity of Americans, when the Government is doing all it can elsewise to hamper that productivity.
As for the Bill, and any other bill which is unnecessarily convoluted, complex, and which is overly broad in scope, it should be studied with careful scrutiny, not stuffed through Congress at warp speed.
The people who wrote this know what is in it, those who did not do not, and no on has time to consider the unforseen effects of the legislation.
Not only is there no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to be (de facto) siezing yet another industry, but the haste involved is damning.
Further comment would likely get me in trouble..........
Oh, put money on it: It will be mandatory.
Call me "paranoid," but it appears to me the federal government has a massive conflict of interest in such a proposal. Just as the baby boom generation is retiring, they realize the Social Security Retirement System is about to implode as the Ponzi scheme that it ever was. So, start getting senior citizens primed to consider their "end of life decisions" as early as, say age 60 or 65 — force them to do it, in fact. They must be "trained" to contemplate their own mortality, and so educated, will be more likely to accept the reasons government bureaucrats will give later on for withholding life-preserving medications and treatments after a certain (unspecified) age. In this way, Social Security Retirement beneficiaries can be "hustled" off the roles sooner rather than later, by "helping" them die sooner than they otherwise would. This is the cost "society" must pay to keep the retirement system financially strong.
Of course, this entire monstrosity of "healthcare reform" is completely unconstitutional. It is also thoroughly Orwellian in concept.
Speaking as a taxpayer, I am sick and tired of being on the hook for the costs of unconstitutional legislation. My naïve idea is that, as a taxpayer, I am only obligated to pay for things that are warranted by the Constitution. And yet the bill is being sent to me and future generations for things that the Constitution does not authorize. Which is just about everything the Obama Administration, with the collusion of the most radically progressive Congress I've ever seen in my life, has been doing and is doing.
Dear joanie, I also notice the extreme reluctance of the Washington political class to take trial lawyers to account as a major source of upward pricing pressure in the healthcare industry. Tort reform would have a major impact on cost reduction — but no one in Washington wants to touch it. It's sort of become its own little untouchable "third rail," like Social Security: A politician touches it at his own peril.
This entire healthcare reform is just a mendacious, untransparent, cobbled-together, half-baked, inane house of cards. Plus there's simply no way that the American people can afford it, both from a financial and a liberty standpoint. There simply isn't enough money in the world to pay for it. Our nation is under the control of a gang of criminal thugs, liars, cheaters, stealers, pillagers.... Anyone up for a good "tar and feathering?" :^)
They will be stopped, because they must be stopped. The question is: How?
Thanks so very much, dear joanie, for your marvelous essay!
"Upon what meat has this our Caesar fed, that he has become so great?"
Julius Caesar - Shakespeare
We all know how it ended for Caesar.
I predict a strong backlash against the Democrats when the baby boomers finally wake up to this.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Doctors in this area have had to add extra staff and work far longer hours to keep up with the paperwork requirements imposed by HIPAA and other Federal requirements.
For us, in a community which boomed recently when oil activity in the region increased, this translates to longer waits to get in to see a physician, and to doctors who are getting burned out trying to deal with the increased workload--which means there is/will be an inevitable decline in the quality of care.
When you are in business against a competitor with unlimited financial backing (which is what the government is/will be) and who can set all the rules by which things are done, you are doomed.
What's more, the government can extract payment at gunpoint if necessary through the imposition of taxes and fees on the people.
People are mad, but we haven't seen anything yet, because so many still think they will benefit from the programs.
That is a sad comment on the character of the American populace, when the day has been carried because people think they will get the freebies in such numbers they voted for these goons. They are beginning to wake up.
Some will come out better, (the parasite class traditionally has).
Others were promised long ago that certain programs would be there if they allowed the government to sieze part of their pay, and the absence of promised reforms of those programs has ensured their eventual catastrophic failure.
The bottom line is, that one way or another, we will all pay for those failures, in money, pain, and life lost.
Personally, I am trying to learn every medicinal herb in this area and their uses, because that might be what we are down to in a few years--especially if the government is making plans to kill us off.
I figured they would just devalue the currency to skate out of the Social Security debt. Silly me. It looks like the plan is to kill us off instead.
Ironic, really, when you consider all the pap about quitting smoking and getting in shape, life is just beginning at 50, yaddayaddayadda, when the next step is to deny us access to a doctor when we need one.
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.