Current Issues
Why I Oppose the Wyden-Bennett Socialized Health Care Bill
Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:30am.
I was in DC recently and addressed 150 taxpayer policy organization leaders at Grover Norquist’s weekly briefing. After my comments, a question from the floor was asked. “Are you aware of how entrenched your senator is in promoting socialized medicine in this country? Are you aware of the socialist provisions in the Wyden-Bennett bill?” My response was “yes.”
I want to explain this bill in terms of principles – the principles of the free market.
My opponent who sponsored this bill claims he is "Utah's Conservative Choice." Yet, upon a closer look, this bill is really a socialist "Lite" proposal. It gets some of the right premises correct, but its implementation violates free market principles by keeping the Federal government in the driver's seat through a series of Federal mandates (read that: $$$). Just how that is a free-market solution escapes me.
Understand this principle: A Federal mandate is a violation of free market principles unless it covers one of four areas the Founders espoused: Illegal force of purchase, fraudulent practices, monopoly and debauchery.
This bill includes several Federal mandates over the private sector, managing how it does its business as follows:
1. It unconstitutionally identifies health care as a universal “right.” The Federal government has no power enumerated to it to manage health care in any form or degree.
2. It mandates that insurance companies cover abortions. (Religious insurance companies such as LDS-owned DMBA would be excluded.) All other insurance companies would be forced to cover abortions.
3. It mandates portability and prohibits employers from covering their employees. Employers must participate in this government health care system.
4. It puts the Federal government in a cherry-picking position, telling taxpayers which insurance policies they will be allowed to select. This will put smaller consumer-based insurance companies out of business.
5. It mandates universal coverage under the guise of offering “private choices.” Insurance is about underwriting risks. These mandates drive the cost up for everyone because insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone. This is unrealistic and unsound fiscal policy.
6. Not even the conservative Heritage Foundation supports this bill.http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1849.cfm
Instead, we should be looking at “consumer-based” or "consumer-directed" solutions as discussed in this Heritage article. The solution is to get the Federal government out of the health care system. The Federal government caused the problem in the first place. If high deductible, catastrophic comsumer-based plans are structured properly, the statistics show they offer better benefits at a lower out-of-pocket risk. Isn't that what we want?
As consumers, we must understand that by doing the right thing, we are helping ourselves. Yet too many of us believe that an earmark is a bad thing, except when it benefits us. More and more doctors are beginning to stop taking on Medicare patients. Why? Because they are cold-hearted? NO! Because they can't afford it. And doctors will find that they can afford it less and less with a single-payer plan and other counterfeits to the free market, such as this bill.
My father was a doctor – a good one. He was Chief of Staff at Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital and an adjunct professor of surgery at USC. He pioneered a surgical technique still used today that has saved countless lives. In the early 60s he and my mom asked Ronald Reagan to speak at a California Medical Association convention. Reagan's topic was on Medicare – the dangers of socialized medicine.
A few year later, July 30, 1965, my dad walked through the door white as a sheet. I asked what was wrong. He said, “Congress just passed the first Medicare bill. Today is the first day of the end of quality medicine in America.” Forty-four years later he could be called a "prophet" in his own right because we have created the monster he foresaw.
Here’s how my dad's office used to be run. I know. I worked for him:
1. On the day of the appointment, a patient could be squeezed in if it was an emergency instead of being referred to the emergency room for an enormously expensive visit.
2. Once there, the patient had my dad’s full attention. Some stayed as long as three hours. It was a personal relationship between doctor and patient. Today's doctors must see up to 60 patients a day to stay ahead of their 70% overhead.
3. The lab work was done in the office – x-rays, blood work, urinalysis. I did the lab work myself. Before the patient left the office, the results were in, unless an extended culture was required.
4. Upon check-out, the patient wrote a check and we gave them a receipt. If they couldn’t pay, my dad would take in-kind payment or if that wasn’t possible, he would write it off. Doctors got brownie points and gold stars from the medical association for the charitable work they did.
5. My dad would make an occasional after-hours house call if necessary, and especially if a patient couldn’t afford the hospital emergency room.
When Medicare passed, the office had to start charging more to cover the expense of the paperwork. It was enormous and complex. Ambulance chasers got into the middle. Malpractice insurance became imperative and the costs of doing business skyrocketed - and my dad had even served on the California State Board of Medical Examiners.
In a few years' time, near the end of his career, his health was not great and the costs were making it prohibitive to earn an income that exceeded his overhead. His charges had to increase, and he depended on surgery for his main source of income. But he was a principled doctor and conservative in suggesting invasive surgical procedures, or even in giving out medication, unless absolutely necessary.
Suddenly a glitch in the government system kicked out his insurance eligibility and he was prohibited from performing any surgery until it was resolved. He had no source of income for several months while the system was trying to find the problem and fix it. Government and bureaucracy move slowly. Meanwhile, the stress became great enough that he suddenly died of a heart attack. So you can imagine that I have some strong feelings about what is happening to health care in America. I'm just a bit passionate about it.
Government should not be involved in health care. The free market should be allowed to do what it does best - respond to the needs of the consumer.
Here are some options, aside from what I have identified above:
The Federal government is already managing 2/3 of our health care system through Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans and Democrats have failed to restore the free market system and, to varying degrees, are both proposing socialist reforms. I will oppose any proposal that resembles the President's current proposal as well as other socialist "Lite" proposals such as the Wyden-Bennett plan. The President's plan carries an estimated $1.5 trillion price tag. It is precisely Federal intervention into the private market that has caused the massive increases in health care costs in the first place.
Adding to the soaring costs are the trial lawyers who have chased after doctors without any tort caps. We need to implement a new system of "loser pay" along with limitations on litigation claims and rewards. On the Senate side, tort reform is protected because 60% of the Senate are attorneys. We don't need any more attorneys in the Senate!
The solution to this health care crisis is to implement free market solutions including health savings accounts, tax credits to cover the costs of rising insurance premiums, cash-only doctors (you'll get 60% less cost) and limiting medical malpractice awards to decrease health care costs. Then we can repeal the Meicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which represents a gigantic $16 trillion in unfunded liability.
At the end of the day, we must behave as citizens of a free republic and take personal responsibility to do the right thing. We must stop expecting government to be the giver of all benefits. We must look in the mirror and remind ourselves of this adage from Pogo: "We've met the enemy, and it is us."
Now, as Dr. Laura would say, "Go do the right thing." Let us take an inventory of how we may be contributing to the problem and then be the first to take personal responsibility for our lives. I hope you'll start by supporting my candidacy for U.S. Senate. Go to my Facebook group and sign up today. .
Limited Government. Conservative Principles. American Values.
Friday, June 26, 2009 at 8:35am.
Here are some of the principles and values upon which I stand in this campaign for U.S. Senate:
The late Dr. Adrian Rogers said: “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
This is precisely what the Obama administration is doing to our country. This is what decades of Congressional delegations, across party lines, have been doing to our country. Only a few have consistently stood up to the peer pressure and the special interest campaign contributions. As a result, one step at a time, we find our nation in an increased position of weakness inside our borders as well as on the world stage.
William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian clergyman, published a 1916 pamphlet called "The Ten Cannots". He wrote:
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative.
You cannot really help men by having the government tax them to do for them what they can and should do for themselves."
