March To Nationalized Health Care Continues
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
There’s been no shortage of developing details concerning the desire of our elected representatives (or at least those who are in charge of the process) to expand our government’s control over our daily lives, with specific attention to our health care and payment of such care.
On October 29th, House Democrat leaders released the health care bill that will be debated on the House. The bill is H.R. 3962, Affordable Healthcare for America Act. Floor consideration will start after a 72 hour waiting period and is expected the middle of the first week in November. As Dana Miller reports in this account where the legislative proposal might lack in substance, it certainly hasn’t been short of hype.
We can also see that according to those watching the bottom line, the bill (if enacted) is being estimated to be anything but “inexpensive” . From the information we’re getting, it is going to be paid primarily by imposing a surcharge on taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million (married filing a joint return) and $500,000 (single) at a rate of 5.4 percent.
There are lots of good reasons to be opposed to the legislative proposal. Each of us should be weighing in with opposition to compulsory national health insurance and any national health plan. Are there no limits to what government’s heavy burden shouldn’t extend? We need to remember that this legislation creates a government run health insurance program and not only forces individuals to have a health policy, but also mandates that employers insure their workers and that individuals carry coverage, subject to the yet to be determined requirements of the soon to come health insurance coverage czar.
There’s not much better going on in Senator Harry Reid’s controlled U.S. Senate. Although we don’t completely agree with the conclusion of David Broder’s piece on state’s being able to opt-out of at least the forced government option – it does make for an interesting idea on whether we might be able to get the same clause inserted into all of the intrusions the federal government is working to accomplish. Even though the actual opt-out opportunity is very limited in scope, avoiding only the-government-picks-up-the-tab section.
Beyond the day-to-day news developments and the hoopla of the federal government’s take-over of another sector of our economy (for our own good, we’re told), this Heritage Foundation post provides insight into the proposals for better alternatives not being considered. These proposals, not from "The Party" in charge, do things that the official edicts to be considered don’t do…they lower costs, expand accessibility, create portability, and promote healthy behavior, all while putting the consumer back in the driver's seat of health care reform. No wonder they aren’t being part of the official legislative package – you can’t expand government control going that way…
There’s been no shortage of developing details concerning the desire of our elected representatives (or at least those who are in charge of the process) to expand our government’s control over our daily lives, with specific attention to our health care and payment of such care.
On October 29th, House Democrat leaders released the health care bill that will be debated on the House. The bill is H.R. 3962, Affordable Healthcare for America Act. Floor consideration will start after a 72 hour waiting period and is expected the middle of the first week in November. As Dana Miller reports in this account where the legislative proposal might lack in substance, it certainly hasn’t been short of hype.
We can also see that according to those watching the bottom line, the bill (if enacted) is being estimated to be anything but “inexpensive” . From the information we’re getting, it is going to be paid primarily by imposing a surcharge on taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million (married filing a joint return) and $500,000 (single) at a rate of 5.4 percent.
There are lots of good reasons to be opposed to the legislative proposal. Each of us should be weighing in with opposition to compulsory national health insurance and any national health plan. Are there no limits to what government’s heavy burden shouldn’t extend? We need to remember that this legislation creates a government run health insurance program and not only forces individuals to have a health policy, but also mandates that employers insure their workers and that individuals carry coverage, subject to the yet to be determined requirements of the soon to come health insurance coverage czar.
There’s not much better going on in Senator Harry Reid’s controlled U.S. Senate. Although we don’t completely agree with the conclusion of David Broder’s piece on state’s being able to opt-out of at least the forced government option – it does make for an interesting idea on whether we might be able to get the same clause inserted into all of the intrusions the federal government is working to accomplish. Even though the actual opt-out opportunity is very limited in scope, avoiding only the-government-picks-up-the-tab section.
Beyond the day-to-day news developments and the hoopla of the federal government’s take-over of another sector of our economy (for our own good, we’re told), this Heritage Foundation post provides insight into the proposals for better alternatives not being considered. These proposals, not from "The Party" in charge, do things that the official edicts to be considered don’t do…they lower costs, expand accessibility, create portability, and promote healthy behavior, all while putting the consumer back in the driver's seat of health care reform. No wonder they aren’t being part of the official legislative package – you can’t expand government control going that way…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 10/30/2009 10:02 AM 
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: National Health Insurance Legislation U.S. House U.S. Senate
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: National Health Insurance Legislation U.S. House U.S. Senate
Comments