Obama's Health Care Plan can be defeated

by Phyllis Schlafly

Instead of allowing insurance to compete by offering different benefit packages, the Democrats are considering insurance mandates to cover exotic benefits that individuals may not want to buy, such as in-vitro fertilization, hair transplants, rehab services, hearing aids, sex-change operations, prescription drugs, abortions, mental health and substance-abuse programs.

The Democrats intend to prohibit low-cost policies for catastrophic care. They want to bar you from buying cheaper insurance in other states.

The Democrats intend to impose community rating on a federal level, which means all customers will be offered the same rates regardless of age, obesity, smoking or other lifestyle differences. This forces young people to subsidize older patients.

The Democrats intend to launch a "public option" to compete with private insurance. Government subsidies for the public option would soon drive private insurance out of business and become the "single-payer" (government plan) that the liberals really want.

Obama promised that if you like your current insurance, you can keep it -- but that option will soon be gone under Obama reform. Your employer could cancel his company-paid insurance (because it's cheaper to pay a fine, instead), or your insurance (because it can't compete with government subsidized insurance) could cancel your company.

Obama's choice of White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle shows the conflicts of interest that surround many of his appointments. In the past three years, she pocketed $5.8 million from her work for major medical companies ($2.3 million from serving on the boards of six firms to be affected by the health-care bill, and $3.5 million from director's fees, stock sales and awards from health-care firms).

DeParle was paid $471,000 as a member of the board of directors of Cerner, a leading developer of electronic medical records systems. Cerner has already boasted that it is well-positioned to take advantage of Obama's push to modernize medical records (for which $19 billion was allocated in the stimulus law).

Modernizing health-care records means putting all your health-care information on computers where it will be accessible to government bureaucrats to help them decide the comparative effectiveness of proposed tests and treatments in relation to your age and health (a.k.a. rationing). Private information can leak out and be used against you by employers, prospective employers, health and life insurance, ex-spouses or political opponents.

The elephant in the Obama health-care room may be abortion. Time Magazine is asking the explosive question: Will Obama's national health care cover abortions?

The majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Because of the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment, federally paid health care (such as Medicaid) does not now cover abortions.

Hillary Clinton, the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood and NARAL are already bragging that nationalized health care will include abortion. Feminists believe that abortion should be covered just like an appendectomy.

Unless it is excluded, abortions will be covered by national health care, thus making the taxpayers pay for hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. That's why 19 pro-life Democrats, organized by Rep. David Boren, D-Okla., sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi warning that they "cannot support any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health-insurance plan."

The Obama plan will permanently put unaccountable bureaucrats (who have never treated a patient) in charge of decisions about if and when you can get the procedures and treatments you and your doctor believe are necessary.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., believes this is "a make-or-break moment for Americans" and a battle we can and must win. As a physician, he reminds us that we can't effectively treat a problem unless we get the diagnosis right, and the Democrats have misdiagnosed the problem as too little rather than too much government intervention.

first published at www.Townhall.com and www.EagleForum.org

Comments

[dmarks]

I found your web site looking for examples of government waste in Illinois.

I assume you know of plenty of it.

Do you have an examples at the state level? We're discussing it at this blog post: http://truthshallrule.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-two-whos-really-in-charge.html. It'd be interesting to see more examples.

On topic, I am hopeful that little will be left of Obama's ambitious plan to expand federal control of personal health care decisions when this is said and done.

Remember how Hillary's plan fell apart due to the effectiveness of an ad campaign that did not use misleading or slanted statements to attack the plan, but instead read from the actual text of her plan.

[truth or dare]

Funny last I checked my insurance company was making my medical decisions for me.

They tell what prescriptions I can't have.
They tell me what services I can't have.
They deny my doctors payment.
They dictate what decisions my doctor can make and which specialist if any they can send me to.
They make me fill out forms so they can sue my mother because I cut myself in her house.

You folks are so out of touch... the private purely profit motivated greed machines we call health insurance companies today are making out medical decisions...NOT ANY OF US.

Psst, by the way my canadian friends have told me that they have never had to fill a form, never had a prescription denied, never had a doctors decision overturned and that their decisions are between them and their doctor.... not like here in the States.

Now all you shills for the private insurance industry can go back and tell the people lining your pockets that the days of unfettered greed promoted by the GOP is OVER.

[Sam Pierce]

Psst, your insurance company may decline to pay for a prescription, but I really doubt they can stop you from buying your own medication.

Psst, your Canadian friends have me convinced that there are no problems or long waits for care in Canada.

Psst, thank you for clarifying that no Canadians come here for medical procedures.

Psst, greed is exhibited by the leach who sucks the resources from the earner, supports government theft of the earner's labor, and believes he is getting what is due him.

[truth or dare]

lol... yep out of touch. Buy medication that cost $300 a month? Yet the same exact medication costs $50 in Canada but alas your GOP made it illegal for me to buy medication from canada.. why was that? to help with competition? LOL.. You and your ilk may worship the dollar and the companies that suck that dollar out of your wallet and spend over 1 million A DAY lobbying for the same old.

THE PURELY PROFIT MOTIVATED INSURANCE AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES HERE IN THE US NEED TO BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED.. NOT REWARDED FOR GREED.

Again this is a problem created by Nixon and perpetuated again again by the GOP "profit is good, people are bad" mantra.

[Andy]

"Government subsidies for the public option would soon drive private insurance out of business"

I don't really get this argument. There are plenty of private health insurance companies in countries with public health services.

I've lived in the UK for many years and used the NHS many times (unfortunately), and whilst the system is overstreched and doctors are rushed, I've never had a bad experience. My father lives in the UK and suffers from MS, and he receives medication that he could never afford otherwise (he works for the church, so wouldn't receive much health insurance in the US). I'm sure many others have had bad experiences, but that is the case in the US too.

Sam continually complains about Canada, but my impression is that most opinions about Canada's health system are based on tabloid horror stories rather than on experience and/or facts.

Sam - have you tried many public health care services? And (without using sarcasm), can you explain to me why we currently spend more (per capita) on healthcare than the UK, Canada and France...and yet always rank below them in terms of key health indicators? And finally, if you're happy to accept that the system isn't perfect, what would you do to fix it?

[Sharon]

Thanx for that Sam.....now, there'll be an argument on truth or dare's end, but ignore, because if this passes, then you and the rest of us that are informed will be proven right. That's sad, I'd rather not be in this case.

[Sam Pierce]

Andy,

I cannot promise to reply without sarcasm, however you are welcome to avoid reading my reply and therefore spare your delicate self from the sarcastic horror.

I do not currently use "public health care services"... I am waiting until my family's health care options are forcibly removed by the kind and loving "Big Brother" Barry. I don't want to enjoy the fruits of 'fairness' until I have to. Of course when you have your way, I will pray that my children remain healthy.

I have used the VA in the past(a long time ago), does that count? I am glad that you have clarified that any report of waiting lists and rationing are simply fabrications of tabloids. I now feel much better about your system. I now know that government is the key to efficiency. I am now convinced that taxpayers owe the non-taxpayer free medical care and that taxpayers should give up a portion of their own care in order to facilitate the equitable distribution (but not rationing, heavens no) of care. I think Barack is right about giving older patients pain pills and telling them to go away. Who else should be viewed as not worth the treatment resources?

[suzy]

if the service is free to people who can't afford it so be it those people aren't paying now anyway. But most working people don't expect the public plan to be free nor do we expect it to be exponentially better than what we have now... just competative and available to the unemployed as alternative to cobra, and available regardless of where you are employed full time or part time. Basically one big group policy nationwide.

The fact is as a people we should seek to ensure that all of our people can see a doctor when they need to...period. As far as I'm concerned the means of paying for it and having people pay for it are details and by products of the need to keep people healthy.

[Andy]

Sam,

I've never seen so many words written with so few answers.

So I'll keep the question simple: what alternative do you propose?

Convince me that there is an alternative, and stop using sarcasm to hide your inability to debate.

[Sam Pierce]

I really don't see the need to offer an alternative to the loss of freedonm, but since there are so many leftists pushing for the removal of liberty here is what I offer as your "alternative":

Federal government butts the Hell out of places (such as medicine) it does not belong.

Stop feeding the malpractice vulture attorneys.

Allow charity to be private, not government wealth redistribution.

Don't suppress innovation by removing incentive.

Free medical providers of red tape.

If the federal government insists on involvement, let them cut taxes.

Bottom line, this is not about medical care for all. It is about control and pushing the socialism camel's nose farther under the flap of the tent.

Is there anything you would not have the government control with an iron fist? Perhaps you could donate more to charity if YOU feel YOU are not giving enough instead of demanding the government seize from all.

[Never coming back again]

Sam Pierce:

"Psst, your insurance company may decline to pay for a prescription, but I really doubt they can stop you from buying your own medication."

How much would the medication be without insurance? I find your remark pretty heartless man.

"Psst, your Canadian friends have me convinced that there are no problems or long waits for care in Canada."

There aren't really any long waits for primary care. There might be for radiation therapy, but that has more to due with a lack of radiologists, not money. The way I see it anyhow, I would rather wait and be able to afford an operation than never be able to get it because I couldn't afford it.

"Psst, thank you for clarifying that no Canadians come here for medical procedures."

Canadians do come to the US for medical procedures sometimes--mostly ones that have money, or think that it's more important for them to get the experimental treatment on the US side than stick with the proven method the government offers. More power to them.

"Psst, greed is exhibited by the leach who sucks the resources from the earner, supports government theft of the earner's labor, and believes he is getting what is due him."

That just supposition and morality. What about insurance companies that suckle our tax dollars from the government for Medicare for their profit?

[Generic Viagra]

Hi, I think your article its very important and interesting,good work, thanks for sharing!! Have a nice day!

[Melanie]

What about Darwins Theory of Evolution. Darwin says that animals who are healthy, strong and smart have an advantage over sick, stupid animals of the same species. That is how superior traits are passed on to the next generation. That is how species evolve. That's Evolution in a nutshell. If strong healthy people have to get health insurance to pay for the sick people to survive they no longer have an advantage over the less evolved or lower animals. Young people have to work harder without any benefits.

Anyway all the young people that have to go out and pay for health insurance they don't need are going to kick themselves in the head for voting for Obama. Your not getting free Health Insurance kids.

I have already noticed that the human species has stopped evolving. If anything we are going backwards in Evolution.

I can't wait until everyone finds out that Obama is crooked. Remember he is from the crooked state on Illionis.