Rushing Through A Horrible Political Policy Is Not What Our Country Needs
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The Obama game-plan for ramming through his idea for a nationalized health care program is far from what America needs or should be given by the majority party in Congress, attempting to do his bidding on the short timetable being advocated. This level of government intrusion should be carefully weighed and all the consequences fully explored. Adopting an ever expanding model of socialism should not be rushed into (and actually we would suggest that going down that road should be avoided all together).
Of course part of the reason for the rush is to get the deed done before anybody reads what’s being proposed or figures out the impact. Political expediency requires the mindless rush for passage and avoiding the details which will only bog down the desired accomplishment of the objective – growing bigger government and expanding the control of that larger, more empowered government. From inside the beltway we learn of these details that are emerging in the possible outcome for a more reasoned approach.
We are also pleased to learn from the blog post of Elizabeth Crum that Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus recently stood up against the onslaught of her party’s leadership to cast a vote, in committee, against the passage of the House version of the Tax-the-Rich-Health-Care-“Solution”. According to this Wall Street Journal piece the Nevada 3rd District representative didn’t go along with the rest of her party in voting for passage. Of course the bill still did pass from the committee and it’s still working its way through the process, but Congresswoman Titus should be appreciated for taking the position she did.
We Have Much To Discuss:
In spite of the belief that all the talking is done, let’s get on with the deciding – nothing could be farther from the truth. Even those who normally agree on principled points are not in unison when it comes to the best way to address the concerns over health care and the manner in which we receive and pay for this very important necessity.
During an on-line, social networking exchange recently I couldn’t help but note the gap in even basic common-ground thinking. Those who supported the passage of the federal government’s involvement took the perspective that greedy health insurance executives who only cared about their own bottom-line were in need of their comeuppance. It was suggested that the federal government’s efforts were only designed to provide “market forces” (as in competition) for those few who supposedly dominate the world of health insurance providers.
I don’t even recall whether any of the conversation involved health care itself, instead only dealing with who should be doing the paying for the health care that should be available for everyone.
Those of us on the other side of the discussion pointed at what the more recently available language for the health care bill said, zeroing in on the “insurance” being mandatory and the federal government getting paid one way or another, including taxes applied to those who receive health care insurance as an employee benefit. There were also no shortages of observations that the next thing that government does properly will mark the first time that a centralized bureaucracy got anything right…
The bottom-line is that we just don’t have all the facts and details that should be required before moving ahead with any legislative proposal. In spite of the majority party’s assertion that those opposing the Obama-Care Health proposal don’t have alternatives – they don’t seem to want and aren’t interested in providing the time or conversation opportunity to hear alternative ideas (including the possibility of just helping those who need help – instead of forcing everyone to this one-sized approach).
Instead of doing what the television commercials urge about calling Senator Harry Reid to “thank him” for all he is doing to install government-mandated health insurance, we need to be in contact, urging an alternative “let’s talk this over and listen to some other ideas” process.
The Obama game-plan for ramming through his idea for a nationalized health care program is far from what America needs or should be given by the majority party in Congress, attempting to do his bidding on the short timetable being advocated. This level of government intrusion should be carefully weighed and all the consequences fully explored. Adopting an ever expanding model of socialism should not be rushed into (and actually we would suggest that going down that road should be avoided all together).
Of course part of the reason for the rush is to get the deed done before anybody reads what’s being proposed or figures out the impact. Political expediency requires the mindless rush for passage and avoiding the details which will only bog down the desired accomplishment of the objective – growing bigger government and expanding the control of that larger, more empowered government. From inside the beltway we learn of these details that are emerging in the possible outcome for a more reasoned approach.
We are also pleased to learn from the blog post of Elizabeth Crum that Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus recently stood up against the onslaught of her party’s leadership to cast a vote, in committee, against the passage of the House version of the Tax-the-Rich-Health-Care-“Solution”. According to this Wall Street Journal piece the Nevada 3rd District representative didn’t go along with the rest of her party in voting for passage. Of course the bill still did pass from the committee and it’s still working its way through the process, but Congresswoman Titus should be appreciated for taking the position she did.
We Have Much To Discuss:
In spite of the belief that all the talking is done, let’s get on with the deciding – nothing could be farther from the truth. Even those who normally agree on principled points are not in unison when it comes to the best way to address the concerns over health care and the manner in which we receive and pay for this very important necessity.
During an on-line, social networking exchange recently I couldn’t help but note the gap in even basic common-ground thinking. Those who supported the passage of the federal government’s involvement took the perspective that greedy health insurance executives who only cared about their own bottom-line were in need of their comeuppance. It was suggested that the federal government’s efforts were only designed to provide “market forces” (as in competition) for those few who supposedly dominate the world of health insurance providers.
I don’t even recall whether any of the conversation involved health care itself, instead only dealing with who should be doing the paying for the health care that should be available for everyone.
Those of us on the other side of the discussion pointed at what the more recently available language for the health care bill said, zeroing in on the “insurance” being mandatory and the federal government getting paid one way or another, including taxes applied to those who receive health care insurance as an employee benefit. There were also no shortages of observations that the next thing that government does properly will mark the first time that a centralized bureaucracy got anything right…
The bottom-line is that we just don’t have all the facts and details that should be required before moving ahead with any legislative proposal. In spite of the majority party’s assertion that those opposing the Obama-Care Health proposal don’t have alternatives – they don’t seem to want and aren’t interested in providing the time or conversation opportunity to hear alternative ideas (including the possibility of just helping those who need help – instead of forcing everyone to this one-sized approach).
Instead of doing what the television commercials urge about calling Senator Harry Reid to “thank him” for all he is doing to install government-mandated health insurance, we need to be in contact, urging an alternative “let’s talk this over and listen to some other ideas” process.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/21/2009 7:32 AM 
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: Obama Health Care Plan Socialized Medicine Congress
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: Obama Health Care Plan Socialized Medicine Congress
Comments