Hi. You asked for some comments on health care. One can not comment on specifics of the legislation until we know what will be included in the bill, especially until after the "conference" to reconcile differences between house and senate bills.
I can comment on some generalities.
Welfare is the transfer of wealth from one person to another person of lesser wealth. If I choose to give of my assets to a person I deem needy, that is freedom. If the government takes my assets through taxation and gives it to a person the government deems needy, that is tyranny.
What might be the real purpose of proposing legislation that will create a huge
bureaucracy and provide "insurance coverage" for the uninsured? Will your assets be taken as taxes to pay for insurance for someone the government deems needy? Could that be welfare tyranny?
Where does the government derive the right to provide any kind of insurance using your tax dollars to provide for persons they select? Where does the government derive the right to require you to purchase health insurance, and if you do not purchase health insurance pay a fine or be sentenced to jail time? Why does the government want to be the single provider of health insurance? Could it be that the government wants to be able to control this segment of our economy so that the government will be able to determine the rules we live by? Is this another welfare scheme to make more people dependent on the government?
Perhaps one might consider the economy of the nation. We are greatly in debt and yet Congress
proposes additional spending. Will the proposed "health legislation" not increase the national debt by a trillion dollars ($1000,000,000,000) or more? Who becomes responsible for and how will this debt be repaid? And don't forget the very expensive energy (cap and trade) bill right behind. The economy is depressed and one does not become prosperous by spending more than we have. Indeed now is not the time to propose these new spending programs.
One might consider as to whether the medical system has been prepared for an onslaught of more insured patients. What would happen to quality of care under government control of insurance coverage, conditions covered and procedures paid for as well as setting the price for a procedure?
One should think for a moment of the psychological effects that welfare has on the recipients and the donors. The government takes from A and gives to B. B, over time, comes to rely on the payment to provide the amenities of life so has no real reason or desire to assume that responsibility
themselves. A, over time, comes to realize that his productivity is being drained to provide for B and that he could have used those assets to provide for a time that he may no longer be able to be productive, but not meet the requirement to have C contribute to his welfare. B thinks he should have more and turns to the government for more. A decides he is not able to use his assets and so decides to cut back on his productivity. This deprives the government of tax revenue to support B at a time when B becomes more strident in his demands. We are not helping our citizens by having a welfare state. I would consider the health legislation as welfare and would on this ground alone oppose it. This is not to say that health care plans can not be devised to meet our needs, we just haven't done it.
I guess you could say I am against the health care plans now under consideration.
Until Next Time,
Granpa
