Health Care As Negotiated by the Government
Now that the health care is getting closer to reality, some of the real implications of what may occur need to be examined more closely.
To analyze all of the various intricacies and implications of the various clauses in the bill likely would take a team of analysts and legal minds a lot more time than has been provided to the Senators approving the bill.
In fact, given the rush to approve it before Christmas, one has to wonder how many of these Senators actually have read the entire bill.
More importantly, having read it, how many of them actually understand all of the implications they are imposing on the people of this country? While I do not question the need to improve health care in the US, I believe that it should be done in a manner that would be to the benefit of the people and to the health care system itself.
Based upon what has been announced by the media regarding the manner in which supporting votes have been obtained from various Senators, it raises the question as to who will truly benefit from the health care bill once it is approved.
For example, before voting for the bill, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.
) received a commitment for $100 million of our taxpayer money to construct a university hospital.
This was just one provision (read that payoff) scattered throughout the 383 pages of changes included in the bill.
Apparently, as reported in some recent polls, Senator Dodd is projected to be in a tight race for re-election in 2010, and sees this as an aid to garner more votes in the upcoming election.
Now this is just one example of how votes were obtained.
Let us not forget the hundreds of millions of dollars given to Louisiana and Arkansas, and the billions to Vermont to get their Senatorial votes.
In addition, let us not lose sight of the fact that the American Medical Association got special deals included in the revised bill before they endorsed it.
Is this real negotiation or just more evidence of the "political prostitution" going on in Washington? In support of this bill, President Obama recently announced that the health care bill proposed by the Senate "will make a tremendous difference for families, for seniors, for businesses and for the country as a whole.
" My best guess is that the president is absolutely right on target with this announcement.
The only difference is that the President probably perceives his comment in a positive light.
Based on what has been published to date, there seem to be many negative consequences for businesses, for seniors and for a significant number of taxpayers.
I certainly cannot assess what it might do for the country as a whole as I do not have access to the backup data supporting the President's statement.
Based on reports of an additional forty seven thousand government employees at the federal level to administer and control health care, it would appear that the only thing that is a certainty is higher fixed costs in Washington and higher taxes to support all of the new agencies and departments.
When all is said and done, guess we will just have to wait and see if we all are better off!
To analyze all of the various intricacies and implications of the various clauses in the bill likely would take a team of analysts and legal minds a lot more time than has been provided to the Senators approving the bill.
In fact, given the rush to approve it before Christmas, one has to wonder how many of these Senators actually have read the entire bill.
More importantly, having read it, how many of them actually understand all of the implications they are imposing on the people of this country? While I do not question the need to improve health care in the US, I believe that it should be done in a manner that would be to the benefit of the people and to the health care system itself.
Based upon what has been announced by the media regarding the manner in which supporting votes have been obtained from various Senators, it raises the question as to who will truly benefit from the health care bill once it is approved.
For example, before voting for the bill, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.
) received a commitment for $100 million of our taxpayer money to construct a university hospital.
This was just one provision (read that payoff) scattered throughout the 383 pages of changes included in the bill.
Apparently, as reported in some recent polls, Senator Dodd is projected to be in a tight race for re-election in 2010, and sees this as an aid to garner more votes in the upcoming election.
Now this is just one example of how votes were obtained.
Let us not forget the hundreds of millions of dollars given to Louisiana and Arkansas, and the billions to Vermont to get their Senatorial votes.
In addition, let us not lose sight of the fact that the American Medical Association got special deals included in the revised bill before they endorsed it.
Is this real negotiation or just more evidence of the "political prostitution" going on in Washington? In support of this bill, President Obama recently announced that the health care bill proposed by the Senate "will make a tremendous difference for families, for seniors, for businesses and for the country as a whole.
" My best guess is that the president is absolutely right on target with this announcement.
The only difference is that the President probably perceives his comment in a positive light.
Based on what has been published to date, there seem to be many negative consequences for businesses, for seniors and for a significant number of taxpayers.
I certainly cannot assess what it might do for the country as a whole as I do not have access to the backup data supporting the President's statement.
Based on reports of an additional forty seven thousand government employees at the federal level to administer and control health care, it would appear that the only thing that is a certainty is higher fixed costs in Washington and higher taxes to support all of the new agencies and departments.
When all is said and done, guess we will just have to wait and see if we all are better off!
Source...