forgottenliberty.com

The White House has released President Obama’s health care plan.  Supposedly, it’s supposed to lower costs and increase coverage.  I’ve read most of what is posted on the White House website, but I don’t see anything new.  It seems like it’s the Senate bill with a few measures from the House bill mixed in.  The opening paragraph of Obama’s plan claims that Republican suggestions have been included, but I have yet to see the 2 main pillars of the Republican take on health care — tort reform and buying insurance across state lines.  Obama’s plan consists of new government regulations, mandates on buying insurance, new taxes on “evil rich” people and tax credits for everyone else.  It can basically be summed in two points, more government intrusion into our lives and redistribution of wealth.  How will this be beneficial to our country and our health care system?   From what I’ve read, this plan does nothing to actually reduce the cost of health care, and provides government handouts to help some people pay for health care.  This would naturally increase the deficit, but will supposedly be paid for by taxes on businesses and the rich.  The following is a summary of the section of the plan that is supposed to make health care more affordable. 

Was Obama lying about the coverage of illegal immigrants during his health care speech to Congress?  Rep. Joe Wilson certainly thought he was when he yelled, “You lie!” at the President.  But was President Obama really lying?  The bill does not plainly state that illegals will be covered, and the President’s supporters point to language in the bill that says only U.S. citizens will be eligible.  However, the bill does not require any proof of citizenship in order to obtain government provided medical care.  What this means is that any illegal immigrant could have their health care paid for by simply checking a box that says, “yes I am a U.S. citizen” and they will not be required to provide any proof of the claim.  Republicans have tried to insert language into the bill that would require people to provide proof of their citizenship but Democrats have voted it down.  Why?  CNN (a source not always friendly to conservatives) has the story,

Despite the promises of politicians like Obama, there is no way around rationing when the government pays for everyone’s health care.  If there is a limited amount of money available (because no one wants their taxes raised to pay for another person’s health care), and patients still demand the best drugs and procedures, rationing will take place.  It is inevitable.  I have previously given examples (here, and here) of countries with government run health care rationing medicines and procedures to their citizens.  Now we have another example of rationing in the U.K.

As reported by the Daily Mail,

Thousands of women are being denied better osteoporosis drugs because of unnecessarily restrictive Government guidelines, a doctor said last night.

Professor David Reid, an expert on brittle bones, said the rules are so stringent that GPs are often prevented from giving alternative treatments to those suffering side-effects from their pills.

A once-a-year jab that could save thousands from the misery of broken bones is also not going to be assessed for use on the NHS in England and Wales for at least three years, according to Professor Reid, despite being available in Scotland.

It means that sufferers are being denied drugs that could have a major impact on their health and their quality of life. The news will reignite the debate about the evaluation system used by drugs rationing body the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

NICE has previously been criticised for banning or restricting breakthrough medicines for conditions such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Why do some people believe something similar to this would not happen here if we

Over the weekend, Bill Clinton and Al Gore gave speeches at the annual Jackson Day dinner in Tennessee. They both referenced the passing of Ted Kennedy and the current health care debate. Their remarks show the fundamental difference between the conservative and liberal view of government. While the liberal focuses on bigger government and more social programs to solve things like poverty and health care, a true conservative will seek to limit government involvement and believes in individuals and the free market to solve almost all problems. Clinton and Gore’s remarks bear witness to this.

First, lets look at a line about health care from Clinton’s speech as reported by Politico,

“I’m not a very good politician any more; I just say what I think,” Clinton said. “But I have been waiting for this for 40 years … to recreate the American dream.”

Apparently, Clinton believes the recreation of the American dream is government reform of health care (a government takeover of health care).  This is vastly different from the traditional definition of the American dream.  The American dream was about the freedom to be anything one wanted to be, to be able to rise as high as one can and succeed or fail based on one’s own abilities and hard work.  People crossed the Atlantic Ocean because of the

The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is planning to cut back on the number of surgeries performed in the Vancouver Metro area.  The health authority is estimating that 6,000 surgeries (including neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures) will need to be scrapped to cover a budget shortfall of over 200 million.

According to the article ,

“…Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.

The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.

As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.

“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.

Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.

Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans.

The move comes after the province acknowledged all health authorities together will be forced to cut staff, limit some services and increase fees to find $360 million in savings during the current fiscal year.”

Why are many in our country pushing for a system similar to this?  How would you feel if