On Health Care

Let's start out with a highly controversial (apparently) statement: Universal Health Insurance does not equal Universal Health Care.

Wow, crazy, isn't it? I mean, that statement is so far out there that apparently not one major candidate has picked up on that yet. The insurance industry, one of the greatest (or, depending on point of view, worst) con games in the history of the world, is famous for their prevarications, evasions, and contortions to avoid paying on claims. Are you aware you can purchase insurance insurance? That repeat word is not a typo...there is insurance to make certain your insurance pays. How stupid is that?

The topic of insurance restrictions and payment avoidance has entered the mainstream lexicon, even being the focal point of John Q and a running joke in The Incredibles. When a subject is an easy punch line in a movie, you know everyone gets the joke...even if it isn't funny.

Yet the candidates are all coming up with plans for "Universal Health Care" that require people to purchase insurance.

They also take advantage of what I like to call the Alzheimer Voters Clause. That is a law that states any estimate made by a politician running for office will be less than a third of the real bill, yet voters will conveniently ignore this egregious mathematical error.

Let's just pick on Hillary Clinton, first, since she gets the most coverage in the referenced article.

Insurers also would be barred from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage.

On the one hand, this is a very noble idea. Of course, it kind of leaves a lot open; say someone is a type 1 diabetic, been that way for a decade. They just learned of the insulin pump and wish to get one because it will free them up from their dependence on needles and syringes. Are they covered? Here is a pre-existing condition that will bring a lot of expense to the table. And they ARE insured! Some insurance plan covers this. Others don't. But guess what? It is a "convenience" procedure...and those who are generous or have experience with it or have the condition will more than likely argue it should be covered. Those in good health will probably argue otherwise.

Or how about a more controversial subject; should we have to pay for murder? Many insurance plans currently cover abortion; many of us know it to be ending an innocent life. Should our dollars be forcibly taken for us to pay for something we believe is immoral, unethical, and no different from Hitler's purges, albeit less focused?

Obviously, this is meant to make the reader think...the costs will be enormous and you will not agree with a lot of them.

Even better, she claims there will be no added bureaucracy. Good thing there is no disconnect from reality there...get ready for a new bureau or series of them...

Financing for the proposal would come from a combination of cuts in wasteful health spending, savings from modernization efforts and a partial rollback of Republican-led tax cuts for individuals earning $250,000 or more.

The land of Oz is nice this time of year. Cuts in wasteful spending would make health care affordable for all of us...and we all know how cuts in spending go, no matter how wasteful. Check out our schools...with all the wasteful spending people already talk about, any time anyone works to reduce it, we hear about only the "school funding cuts" and how the world is coming to an end.

Of course, a lot of this is predicated on a very fundamental shift in the U.S. paradigm. Our individualist ways are about to be made illegal. You will be required, by law, to purchase insurance...you will be forced to spend your money on something that is sub-standard, ineffective, wasteful, and that you might not even want. Additionally, it is something that is almost unenforceable. How do you do it with the homeless, the illegal alien, the unemployed, the self-employed, the child in foster care, the...well, the list goes on. So you have an unconstitutional invasion of privacy that is enforceable primarily against your decent, law-abiding citizens...who, coincidentally, will be picking up the tab for the law breakers who are illegally not purchasing it.

Just to perform my role of equal opportunity offender, check out the not very well thought out statement of Mr. Romney:

"In her plan, we have government [Washington] managed health care. Instead, we should rely on the private markets to guide health care. And in her plan, you see increased taxes. The burden should not be raised on the American people."

The private markets have done a pretty sub-standard job. Yes, we have emergency rooms where people (theoretically) can not legally be refused health care. We all know how well that has worked out.

I actually agree that taxes will increase...but if he believes the burden will not fall on the people, regardless of whose plan is adopted, then he is unbelievably ill-equipped to hold the office of dog-catcher, much less President. The money to fund health care must come from somewhere. That somewhere is, by definition, we the people. You can be fairly certain Saudi Arabia is not going to get a wild hair and finance it. Nor will Israel, Russia. The money will come from we, the working middle class.

Sen. Clinton's plan is a declaration of war on middle-class families who cannot afford $12,000 a year for a health insurance policy because the Clinton plan doesn't cap premiums or regulate them," Court said in a statement. "The only reason to force Americans to buy health insurance is to bail out an industry that's failed to make its products attractive enough to the market."

I think they are a bit harsh in their "declaration of war" rhetoric...but dead-on in the sub-plot that this plan...in fact, every plan mentioned in the article...is a recipe for disaster for the same people the politicians are claiming they are trying to help.

It is time to get rid of these people living in their fantasy worlds where they can go to a communistic system for less money and better services. Or are we not smart enough to know when we are being scammed and lied to?