The U.S. Healthcare Debate.

I've been thinking a lot about Obama's attempts at healthcare reform. He seems to be taking a lot of heat for it, and his popularity has been slipping. First of all, I'm not surprised that his popularity is slipping. There was a lot of unrealistic expectations put on him, and there is no way one person can possibly live up to all that.

I see both sides of the healthcare debate. Something seems morally wrong when people can lose their homes because of medical bills, or die because they don't have coverage. I find that very scary. Medical coverage for all is a noble goal to be sure.

Now, here's the other side. As a Libertarian, I believe that government exists solely to protect our rights. Period. Do I think that healthcare is a basic right? No, I don't. Now, I do have a bit of minarchic libertarian leanings, meaning, if people want to band together to do something, they should be allowed. If an issue is too big for the private sector, that's where government gets involved. I'm not so sure that public healthcare falls under this category.

My first issue with government-run heathcare is this: Is there anyone who actually trusts government to run anything? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone care to raise their hands? (*looks around and sees no hands raised*) That's what I thought. I sure as heck don't. Government are simply bloody leeches; parasites that never get enough and are always screaming for more and demanding it at the point of a gun in the name of "the public good." I may not necessarily agree with a CEO of an insurance company making millions of dollars, but at least he' s a businessman and I can chose to do business with his company or not. Government leaves you no choice. When they get involved in social issues (like social housing for example) they push out those private entitites that can do - and DO do a much better job. Where will you go if government takes over? The US already has Medicaid and when we were living there, we were paying into it with absolutely no expectation that we would ever see a benefit from that. None whatsoever. Um, somehow that seems wrong. We had no say; it was taken from us.

I disagree very strongly with Obama raising taxes on families with income of more than $350,000.00 to pay for this scheme. Why, you ask? Because they don't need the government run health care. Families making that much - or more - will either have their own healthcare, or simply pay the doctors' bills as needed. Why should they be forced to pay for something they will not use? That, to me, is looting (in other words, theft).

Apparently 85% of Americans *DO* have health care. It seems morally wrong to strangle those 85% for the sake of 15%. Government's arrogance knows no bounds that it thinks it can find a solution to something that the private sector can take of - and has been. There are ways that people without insurance can get help.

Let's face it: someone like Bill Gates or Julia Roberts doesn't even need health insurance. Now, I'm talking about the uber-rich, but the point is both Bill Gates and Julia Roberts work hard for their money. If they feel passionate about healthcare (and we know Gates does) they should be able to make donations to hospitals or research in the name of promoting the "public good." Philanthropists like the Shriners set up hospitals that people can go to. If someone like Bill Gates wants to donate to that, why ever not? Why raise his taxes? He pays more than his fair share.

Who do you think will find a cure for AIDS faster? Bill Gates with all the money he's given to AIDS research, or some goverment run lab? Just think of the success he's had with computers; if he has even half that success with finding a cure for AIDS, he's done well. Do you think a government run institution will? Not likely.

One good thing unions used to do was take care of their own. They *did* have funds available for their members that fell on hard times, were disabled, laid off or needed medical help. There was accountability. If someone was found out to be abusing those funds, that person was cut off. There is no accountability when the government takes over something

There is a hospital in Hollywood that was designated for those in the film industry and set up by the Motion Picture and Television Fund. The hospital's motto was, "We take care of our own." It opened in 1941 and was set up to take care of those in the film industry that couldn't afford healthcare: the secretaries, janitors, etc. A lot of famous people went there. For example, Hattie McDaniel, who was an Oscar winner in Gone with the Wind, died there. Sadly, it's closing due to rising healthcare costs. I agree with what they were trying to do. That's the way it should be. Those people that can afford to donate (like Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, George Lucas) can donate to keep it going - *if* they so choose. Let's face it, there's a lot of money in Hollywood; they can host fundraisers, etc.

There are also places like St. Jude's Hospital for children that people like Antonio Banderas and Sarah Jessica Parker help campaign for. As both are parents, one can see why this is a cause close to their hearts and why they would feel strongly about it. With St. Jude being the patron saint of lost causes, you know what serious cases they must be treating. If you feel passionate about children and raising funds for a children's hosptital, you should be free to donate to it. On the other hand, if you DON'T feel strongly about that, but your passion lies somewhere else, you should be just as free not to donate (or have your tax money go to that). That's the upsetting thing about taxes; you can't tell the government where you want your money spent - even though it's yours. Personally, prostate cancer is the cause that's nearest and dearest to my heart. Each year I help raise funds for the annual father's day fundraiser.

By what I've been told, Medicaid actually drives up healthcare costs. Apparently they don't pay enough for the doctor to even cover 15 minutes of his staff's time. I've been told by an online friend that she knows of a doctor that almost lost his house and had to give up his private practice because his medicaid patients were costing him money. Because Medicaid doesn't pay enough, the doctor had to charge more to the patients that could afford it. So the patients that weren't relying on the government were, once more, subsidizing those that were.

That's the sad thing is with anything that's government run, you WILL be paying for it - one way or another. It will be looted from you in the form of taxes in the name of the "public good." Even if you can afford your own private healthcare and don't require government care, you still have to pay for it. Healthcare is expensive; nothing is free. The money has to come from somewhere.

Who's to blame for some of the costs in heathcare? I blame unions. I remember years ago hearing a new graduate from a nursing program saying she was going to be making "x" dollars an hour when she started working. She was upset to learn that, after all her education, she was going to be making only $.50 more an hour than someone that was changing the beds. That, to me, is wrong. When you have someone that does the laundry at hospitals making $.50 an hour less than a new nurse, there is something wrong with the system. Granted a new nurse will have to be supervised the first couple of years, and her salary will go up as she gains more seniority, but come on. When I was in college, I had a friend that worked in the food services in the hospital to pay for her education. She was making $11.00 - and that was a lot of money back then. That was when the minimum wage was hovering around $4.00/hr. But, because she was part of the HEU, she was making big bucks - for serving food. I'm sure that position pays well into the $25 - $30/hr range now. That's crazy. I have no issues with doctors and nurses getting good wages. The most obvious reason being they are making life and death decisions every day; secondly, they have invested several years of their life into education. I do have issues with people that change beds and serve the food making big bucks - for a job that basically requires very little training and no education. Come on, any high school student can do that. Get your priorities straight. Over-valuing jobs like that are a big reason why I don't like unions. Unions drive up the wages of 10% of the people and reduce the wages of 90%. (I'm quoting Milton Friedman). When they drive up healthcare costs like that, how can they say they speak for the average working man?

I come from a country where private healthcare is not allowed. I think that's ridiculous. I think we should have at miniumum a public/private option. If for no other reason than those that can afford to pay for surgeries can "jump the queue" and thereby free up the waiting lists for those that are in the public system. Private healthcare companies would have to compete for your business and have an incentive to treat their customers right and give good service. Government has no such incentive. In fact, when have you ever had good service from government? Private healthcare wouldn't let their hospitals fall into the sad state of disrepair that some of the hosptials fall into here.

You should have the right to choose your healthcare. Now, I do find it sickening that private insurance companies' CEO's make millions of dollars and then turn down treatment for legitimate healthcare needs. I'm not saying CEO's shouldn't make good salaries, but I agree that that does seem ethically wrong.

I saw an interesting video on this debate last night. I'd never heard of Mike Rogers before I saw this, but I agree with everything he says: http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/ It isn't long - just over three minutes.

I really hope this bill isn't passed.