Health Care: What Not To Do.

The best way to start this off is by saying that the way that the health care system in this country has its problems. There are things that can be done better.

We have problems that need to be taken care of before things get much more out of hand. I believe that the majority of Americans realize that we have issues with the system, the disagreement is about the way these problems should be fixed.

The first thing that needs to be done is to limit government's involvement in the process. Yes, I said limit.

I'm sorry, did I take you by surprise?

I know that the current trend in our country is towards more government involvement, not less.

Right now in D.C. the current group of thieves is trying take over our health care system because there are people who are not covered by insurance and the cost of insurance is too high and gosh darnitt this is just the right thing to do. I mean, don't you care about these poor unfortunates? The only way to show that you care is to let Big Government come in and just make things all better.

Oh, you don't want Big Government to take things over? Then Big Government says you must be a part of the big money insurance machine who just wants to maximize your profits at the expense of your fellow human beings. You also are more than likely a xenophobic fear monger. You probably like to pull the wings off flies, trip old ladies and torture puppies. Big Government says that you must be a very bad person. Only a bad person wouldn't trust Big Government.

Remember, Big Government is your friend.

Here are three reasons for not allowing Big Government to assume more control over the system.

Big Government is inefficient.

Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.

The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report con­cludes that locating the money is “a priority.”

The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year. (heritage.org)

I can put that amount into perspective using another analogy: according to AssociatedContent.com it costs us about $400,000 a year per soldier in Iraq. Now, with $25 billion we could have put over 62,000 more troops into the war zone. FYI, there are about 140,000 soldiers there right now.

Imagine, this is not money that was spent on wasteful programs (a Bridge to Nowhere for example) $25 billion just disappeared.

Big Government wastes money.

Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program effi­ciencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recip­ients billions of dollars annually.

For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently com­pared the prices paid by Medicare and the Depart­ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equip­ment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7]

So, a large program is wasteful in its spending because of "public support" (and special interest groups) and the politician's own self interests. Any attempt to fix the problem is perceived as an attempt to deny people what they think they are "entitled" to.

Would an even larger political program with even more "entitlees" be more cost conscious?

Big Government does not care about you or me.

The report, “Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain Abuse in New York,” states, “Over the past decade, a host of government jurisdictions and agencies statewide have condemned or threatened to condemn homes and small businesses for the New York Stock Exchange, The New York Times, IKEA, Costco, and Stop & Shop. An inner-city church lost its future home to eminent domain for commercial development that never came to pass. Scores of small business owners have been threatened with seizure for a private university in Harlem and for office space in Queens and Syracuse. Older homes were on the chopping block near Buffalo, simply so newer homes could be built. From Montauk Point to Niagara Falls, every community in the Empire State is subject to what the U.S. Supreme Court has accurately called the ‘despotic power.’” (ij.org)

A copy of the report is available at: http://www.ij.org/BuildingEmpires.

But wait, why would government condemn the homes and small businesses of individuals for the benefit of the large businesses? Because of money of course. Not only because the big businesses fund political campaigns, but also because the tax revenues that big businesses generate runs the government.

These are just a few reasons why it is a bad idea for Big Government to take a larger role in Health Care. There are many more, of course, like the loss of patient choice, government bean counters deciding who should get care and who shouldn't...wait here's a story from the BBC you might find interesting about just that topic.

A man from east London who began binge-drinking at 13 has died after being denied a life-saving liver transplant. Gary Reinbach, 22, from Dagenham, was given only a few weeks to live after developing cirrhosis of the liver. He was admitted to University College Hospital London (UCL) with alcohol damage for the first time 10 weeks ago.

But health chiefs ruled he should not be exempt from strict organ donation criteria which require an alcohol-free period of at least six months.

Mr Reinbach, who died on Sunday, was too ill to be sent home after his admission to hospital. A statement from NHS Blood and Transplant (note: NHS Blood and Transplant is a special health authority under the English National Health Service) said: "This case highlights the dilemma doctors face because of the shortage of donated organs. They have to make tough decisions about who is going to get the benefit and who is going to take best care of this precious gift."

Let me tell you, if he had been one of my loved ones, I would not want some government agent saying "I'm sorry, we'd pay for and perform the procedure, but he doesn't meet our donation criteria."

Would you want that?

It is my point of view that any system that places more authority in the hands of the government actually diminishes our individual freedoms.

Also, it is immoral to fiscially enslave future generations.

We must act, but these actions must be carefully considered and fiscally responsible. If our actions are not, if we decide to do what is easy instead of what is right, then we are no better than those who made this mess to begin with.

And we will be damned by history as the generation that failed America.