Friday, August 14, 2009
Government takeover won't help health care
Editorial commentary
Recent contributions
- Striving for civility
- School funding no fantasy
- Pesticide board's work will continue through merger
- Bugged over plan to exterminate pesticide board
- Commentary archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Chip Tarbutton
Tarbutton, of Roanoke, is an organizer for the Roanoke Tea Party group.
I read with some amusement the commentary from Paula Williams asking to "bring on" socialized medicine ("Socialized medicine? Bring it on," Aug. 4). I was flattered to be mentioned by name as the focal point of local opposition to socialized medicine after I was quoted in a news article ("Virginia speaking up in health care debate," July 24).
Surprisingly, there were several points made in the commentary I agreed with.
We do have about 50 percent of our health care run by the government. That is the main problem with the system we have in place now. Medicaid is underfunded by $36 trillion. Why would you take the other half of the health care system that isn't totally wrecked by the government and wreck it?
We do pay too much for health care coverage. This is primarily because of excessive regulation. If there were competition and options allowed by the government, prices would come down.
The CEOs running our health care are wasting our money frivolously. They are called Congress and the president.
Not surprisingly, there are many disagreements.
If you think you would get relief from high premiums by paying more tax money, you are sadly deluded.
Denials of care would get worse under a single-payer system. Every single-payer system in existence rations care. There are numerous quotations from everyone from the president down that clearly state that citizens have to get used to the idea that the level of care you receive will go down.
All of the evils quoted by Williams will be much worse under a single-payer system; this is, after all, the federal government. Can anyone name a federal social program that actually works?
But there do need to be changes to the system. Think about the way car insurance works. If you drive an old clunker (that the government has not overpaid you for) you can choose to get liability insurance, basic insurance that just covers you in case you plow into another car.
Right now, government regulations prohibit this kind of health insurance. If I'm 22 years old and healthy, a basic health plan might be better for me. If we free up the system to create options and take away the ridiculous government regulations in place, that would allow the insurance companies to create choice and a cheaper system.
The current system is a complete train wreck, weighed down by government regulations, lobbyists and insurance companies' interests. The proposed fix makes the problems worse and allows the government complete control of your health care choices. It also grants the government unprecedented access to your personal and financial records. Big Brother is here through this plan.
Offering the uninsured more affordable options would create a real solution to the problem and ultimately help all of us by lowering costs, as insurance companies will be incentivized to offer cheaper and better options in a competitive environment.
We could also control costs by addressing the massive shortfalls to Medicaid and Medicare. This would require fiscal responsibility and courage, attributes that are almost nonexistent in Washington, D.C.
But I urge you to not take my word for it. Read the bill yourself. Look at the research. Look at the issues. If you have the Internet, there is no excuse not to be informed.
I think you'll find I'm correct on this. If you agree with my assessment, join your local Tea Party movement and get involved. It's easy to sit back on your couch and complain, but if you are unhappy with the status quo, I urge you to get out and be active to make a change.
