With most American’s realizing that the American Health Care System is in crisis and that medical insurance premiums have risen beyond our ability to pay millions have been forced to severely limit coverage or drop it all together. However, few of us can agree on the best way to resolve the situation that has left these same families in the vulnerable position of facing economic disaster if a tragedy or severe illness were to strike. To solve this issue some would purport that we the American taxpayer should pay the cost but the increasing burden of federal debt from Bush’s War on Terror has already overwhelmed the average taxpayer and additional taxes are sure to bring more than a squeak of protest.
While some companies, in our area at least, are addressing the problem by offering low-cost doctor visits at walk-in clinics there is still an invisible line that I would hate to see crossed as we are weaned away from the standard of care we have known for decades.
Presidential hopeful John Edwards, a Democrat, has publicly admitted that while the option of Universal Health Care must be considered it would definitely result in higher taxes being paid by those who can least afford it since there are always enough loop holes for the rich to escape the brunt of the cost. On the other hand, Democratic Presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton is outright calling for a socialistic form of health care wherein she claims that if the system were to be made efficient enough the additional cost could be avoided. However, one only need to look at inefficiently current federal programs are being managed, such as Medicare, to realize that the new, streamlined health care system will result in taxpayers paying more for a poorer quality of care. Backing her contention of why this system will work Ms. Clinton recently stated, “We’ve got to get the costs of healthcare under control. Why would we put more money into a dysfunctional system?” I agree with Ms. Clinton on the one hand that no one wants to throw money at the already defunct medical system. However, what makes her think that a new healthcare system run under the fiat of the federal government would be any better than the current system that is disintegrating under both private and governmental controls.
John Edwards plan first calls for businesses to be required to pay for or significantly cover the cost of their employees insurance premiums, after which he will rearrange federal law to control insurance costs before requiring that all American residents have insurance. However, one has to give him credit for having a plan since Republicans, for the most part, are not addressing the issue at all. It is a given that Republicans on a whole oppose federal control of the health care system but withering away from the issue and refusing to address it doesn’t make it go away.
One only has to look back over the past five decades to see how our medical system got into the mess it is in today but contrary to the ridiculous claims of some presidential hopefuls handing more power over to the federal government is not the answer. In fact, it should be seen as another slap in the face to state governments who were guaranteed the retention of their decision-making power by the constitution that also called for a small federal government.
The danger I see in handing our medical system over to the federal government it first that they will never return it to the individual and ultimately they would have the power to deny care or force medical decisions on the American people against their wishes. Additionally, since it is documented that the government desires to monitor all of our movements with tracking devices one has to wonder what other controls they would choose to enforce limiting our freedom even further.
[tags]Universal health care, Democratic proposal, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Federal government, Monitoring Americans, Health care system, Socialized medicine, medical insurance[/tags]