'Duty to die' hinted in Obamacare

Government-run health care just keeps getting better and better. "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430)," writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post. The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.' "This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues? "

So if you're elderly, you're contributing to the national debt and your exhaling of carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. As ex-governor of Colorado Dick Lamm put it some years ago, you should just "get out of the way".

Lamm was a Democrat, of course, along with the ghouls who are putting together this bill. They call themselves the "Party of Compassion".

Dick Lamm is now 74 years old. If he's an honest man, he'll do his duty any day now.

BHO health plan fraught with fallacies

As we watch our president address the many problems facing our society (though not so much the Iranian one), the latest "crisis" that needs his immediate attention is our health care system. And why not? We all pay too much for health care. Some 15% don't have health insurance. And in the words of his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

So (surprise!) the solution is for government to vastly expand insurance coverage. The government will somehow get more people covered for the same cost and with the same level of care. But aside from being mathematically impossible, it's just the start. The eventual track of government's further intrusion into the health market will be the destruction of private health care, replaced completely by government. Government will always win since it makes/enforces the laws and can always run a deficit. And you think private monopolies are bad?

The bottom line is that the Democrats' proposals lead directly to a health care system that would entrust all personal health information with the federal government, who would then determine what care you receive (or don't) and actually stands to gain (by controlling the terms/level of estate taxes) when you die.

Are you kidding me? This is not a trivial conflict of interest! This doesn't scare you?

First, you would think the privacy advocates would be decrying the centralization of medical information with the federal government. As I recall, they were all over the previous administrations' effort to look into library and phone records to prevent terrorism - somewhat less important/personal information. And aren't there currently some issues with identity theft?

Then, you would imagine the “futurists” and deep thinkers would ponder the effect of government being completely responsible for our very life and death - from cradle (if you get that far) to coffin (which you certainly will). The premise that a bigger single payer (i.e. government, who by the way already spends some half of all healthcare dollars) will make the system more efficient is asinine to most of us. But regardless it will lead to cost cutting (public money must be used wisely), rationing (prices are no longer able to help allocate), and overall health/lifestyle intrusions (poor choices burden others).

For example, do you really think when government pays for all healthcare they:

** will allow women to choose to have (even potentially) sick babies? It would be inefficient (and unfair) to have a baby that costs the system too much. Hey, but no more Down's Syndrome.

** will permit you to fully choose what you consume? They will increasingly promote and eventually require “prevention and wellness” programs since poor health decisions (whether eating, drinking, or smoking) cost the system too much. (And someone needs to alert those hypocrisy watchers given the President's recent anti-smoking bill.)

** will let your doctor determine the best course of care? Only government approved “most effective therapies” will be allowed.

** will provide you care at all once the costs exceed the benefits of providing it? That would be inefficient for the taxpayers! Historically, the "top" (sickest) 5% receive half of the spending, which of course isn't fair to the "bottom" 95%. Sure, those in government and assorted VIPs will get to the front of the line, but you won't.

** will not be tempted to look at the financial gain from taxing your estate? Any efficiently run organization would weigh that into its decisions. For example, your treatment will cost the system $200,000 and you may only live for a year, but if somehow you die (God forbid) your estate taxes will provide $5,000,000. Let's not imagine what might happen when your politics are out of favor. Thanks big brother Cain.

Finally, you would at least expect those so concerned about "fear mongering" (see previous administration's critics) to be wary as President Obama threatens of a health care "time bomb!" Especially after his previous dire warnings of catastrophe if we didn't immediately pass a stimulus bill to address the "worst economy" since the Great Depression. And his upcoming energy takeover to stave off world destruction from global warming, or is it cooling (and completely cripple our economy.) Hey, at least we can kill two "birds" with one stone when we pull your plug! Talk about efficiency! (sorry PETA.)

This is hope? Sadly, I think Dante said it best - "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

Speaking of hope, we hopefully can take the time to actually debate the real underlying reasons for our health care problems since we all agree issues need to be addressed. I would argue that the biggest one affecting the system is the third party nature of it, but also the corporate tax deduction for health benefits, the prevalence of lawsuits and resulting use of overly defensive medicine (and escalating cost of malpractice insurance), and the high cost of new lifesaving technology (including drug development). Of course, none of that will change (for the better) with the proposals currently being rammed through by the Democrats. What will certainly change is your right to choose. Whoever is paying is deciding - and it won't be you.

So where does this end? At what point do you realize this actually is a time bomb, but lit by the left and threatening our most fundamental rights - the rights to life and to liberty. The man who claims he doesn't want bigger government wants to control who gets care, how you get it, and when you won't.

A "crisis" may be a terrible thing to “waste” in your opinion, President Obama. But so is our freedom. At least some of us still think so.

More govt. won't fix health care

President Obama wants sweeping “reforms” to the American health care system that will lead down the dark path to socialized medicine. But it's not more government we need to reform health care—it's more freedom. The thought of nationalizing healthcare is tantalizing for many Americans. Yet socialized medicine would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, create lengthy, life-threatening wait lines, push out private industry and result in inferior care. Not to mention that nationalized healthcare is not truly free because somebody is going to pay for it—and that somebody is you, the taxpayer. In order to compensate for the costs, our taxes would have to go up, violating the President's pledge against raising taxes on the middle class.

Consequently, private healthcare operations would be crowded out. Those who are paying for their own health coverage would also be paying for those who are under the new government program, eventually discouraging them from maintaining private coverage and, inversely, encouraging them to switch to the cheaper government program. Additionally, the government could initiate regulations and policies to benefit its program over competitors, and many employers will determine that it is more economical to drop their health insurance plans due to the increased financial strain the new program would force upon them.

As with the U.S. Postal Service, any entity run by the government has a striking advantage over private industry. The USPS posted a record-breaking loss in the second quarter of this year of 10.5%, or $1.9 billion—the largest drop in 38 years. Assume for the moment they were to lose more and more money over the course of this year as they lose business, and assume that the very same thing is happening to competitors such as FedEx. USPS, unlike FedEx, has the benefit of taxpayer money to back it up. This has the potential to stifle competition significantly were this hypothetical to play out.

Take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While it was never written down on paper, everyone understood that should something happen to either financial institution, the government would be there to back it up. As these examples prove, government programs and government-sponsored enterprises have a unique advantage over their private sector counterparts that, as inefficient as they may be, allows them to continue irrespective of the negative results of their activities. There is no risk when the government is backing you up.

And as the CATO Institute’s Michael Tanner put it, “Government would compel Americans to purchase health insurance, controlling its content, how much we pay, and the relationships between insurers, doctors, and patients. Government bureaucrats would determine whether Americans received certain medical services.”

To the President’s argument that the program would serve as a sort-of support system only for those who can’t afford it, look at Social Security. When FDR began that program in the 1930s, it was intended as a supplement to personal retirement plans, not the primary source of retirement income that it is today. In this case, a program meant as only a support system has grown to be the primary source for retirement funds.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The United States' healthcare system contains the greatest innovations, the highest-quality care and some of the best doctors in the world. The problem with our healthcare system is the disparity between those who can afford it and those who cannot.

President Obama is right that we need reform. The status quo is unacceptable. But his nationalization answer to “cutting costs” does not address the fundamental reasons healthcare outlays are so great. The plan will do little more than inject more government spending and bureaucracy into the industry. The way to fix this is not with greater government control or a new government program, but through more freedom in the marketplace.

The healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, with the net cost of regulation estimated by Duke University Professor Chris Conover to be $169 billion a year. As with any industry, in order to pay for the dictates of the government, institutions of health are forced to raise costs, which extends to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Government regulations and policies have essentially mandated a third party-based system that forces the consumer to work through health insurance companies, HMO's, employers and other middlemen that pay the supplier. 84% of all personal healthcare spending is made through private health insurance, the government or other private expenditures that are not directly from the patient.

Simple human nature tells us that when someone other than the consumer is doing the paying, demand will rise. Why? Because when an individual is separated from the spending and someone else is paying the costs, consumers are encouraged to use the service more as the incentive for individuals to save for themselves diminishes. After all, the mentality goes, if someone else is paying for it, why should I care?

Likewise, basic economics tells us that as demand rises and supply remains stagnant, prices (premiums) will inevitably go up, which in turn disadvantages those who pay directly, such as the self-employed.

Encouraging the third-party system are tax exemptions for employer-provided health insurance that the millions of self-employed and small business owners and workers who pay on their own do not receive. The government incentives, policies and regulations put in place, in large part by the federal tax code, serve to do nothing more than exacerbate the problem.

The layman's prescription for health reform is increased competition and market freedom. Not a day goes by where we don't see commercials for Geico, AllState and other car insurance companies competing over who provides the best service at the lowest price—competition absent from healthcare because of the third-party system. Insurance companies aren’t competing for individual consumers—they’re contending for large corporations.

To fix this, the healthcare tax exemption needs to be equalized across the board so that everyone, not just the middlemen and large corporations, will benefit from it. That means small businesses as well as individuals. Tax-free health savings accounts need to be expanded, thereby helping individuals to purchase their own health insurance or pull from a pool of money when they need to.

Adjusting the policies and regulations perpetuating the third-party system, like the tax exclusion, would increase competition by allowing consumers to shop around on their own, decreasing costs substantially while maintaining high quality. Furthermore, due to the high cost of regulation, deregulation is critical to opening up the market.

Of course these are just a few starting points that only scratch the surface, but one thing is undeniable: The question is not one of government versus status quo or big business versus government, as the President is trying to frame it. It goes well beyond that.

It's not more government we need to solve healthcare—it's more freedom.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, online radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly. His website is SengCenter.com. He is also College Liaison for BackboneAmerica.net, working through the Backbone Americans group on Facebook.

First fix Medicare, Mr. President

America's health care system certainly has its share of problems, of which most emanate from politicians' tinkering. They keep tempting the frustrated consumer with promises of better benefits at someone else's expense. So the prospect of President Obama and Congress remaking American health care in their own image should scare the pants off anyone who looks not merely at the existing problems but at government's abysmal record as a problem-solver.

Since last November, Obama and Congress have operated in crisis mode. They hastily passed a stimulus bill that still hasn't stimulated - only to be subsequently embarrassed by provisions that no one, except select staffers and lobbyists, had actually read.

The President incessantly beats the drum for grandiose new programs in health care, "clean energy," and education, touting them as fundamental steps in a regimen of economic recovery and fiscal responsibility.

This, of course, is hogwash.

Even the Washington Post observed that "these pursuits have little to do with the economic crisis, and they are not the key to economic recovery."

Before overhauling what remains of a voluntary, market-based system of private-sector health care delivery, the President and Congress should focus instead on Medicare, the $462 billion-a-year boondoggle that is on course to devour the federal budget and ruin the U.S. economy.

President Obama argues that health care change is necessary because 46 million people don't have insurance. Setting aside the questionable validity of that statistic, compare it instead to the 45 million people currently enrolled in Medicare.

Today, Medicare consumes 13 percent of the federal budget and 3.2 percent of the national economy. (Medicare and SCHIP push total federal government health care spending to more than one-fifth of all federal outlays - more than spending on national defense.)

According to the annual Trustees' report, in 2008 the Medicare Trust Fund began paying out more in benefits than it was collecting in payroll taxes and interest. By 2017, the fund will be completely exhausted and staring at a $37.6 trillion - with a "T" - deficit over the next 75 years.

Of all the reckless, irresponsible promises made by Washington politicians and charged against our children and grandchildren's future, Medicare is the largest and most costly. In 20 years, its costs will surpass Social Security and are forecast to more than triple unless politicians muster the courage control spending or allow private competition to control costs.

The rush to "do something" to reform health care is doubly dangerous and counterproductive because the numbers used by the President don't add up - not remotely.

The President and his budget office vow that the as-yet-incomplete plan will be "deficit neutral." Why then has it been exempted from the new "pay as you go" spending rules? Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the Senate's Kennedy-Dodd health care bill at $1.6 trillion over 10 years. And that's just for the portions that have been unveiled.

Get this: despite the embarrassment of voting for a non-stimulative stimulus bill that they couldn't take time to read, Democrats are now amending a health care bill even before a complete version has been introduced - a process Sen. John McCain aptly labeled "a joke."

CBO's estimate does not include the cost for Obama's "public option," under which a government insurance program would compete with private plans. An independent analysis by the Lewin Group suggest that up to 119 million people currently insured by their employers could be shifted to a public plan.

So Obama claims he can create a new health care program nearly three times the size of Medicare and that he can do it for free? Compared to that, loaves and fishes are child's play.

Given that 67 percent of Americans still rate their own health care coverage as excellent or good and that the federal government's existing health care programs are budget-busters, President Obama should take some divine advice: "Physician, heal thyself."

Abortion stalks women every day

From time to time the issue of abortion is a matter for political controversy, but for women it is an issue every day. With 45 million abortions for the last 36 years, that is, 1,500,000 annually, 125,000 monthly, 28,846 weekly and 4,109 daily in this country. Those children could have been men and women who became mothers and fathers, employers and employees, civilians and soldiers, craftsmen and professionals, and so on. But abortion is an ever-present temptation, legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.

Last year when I was on the campus of Barstow Community College, I encountered a small group of young people who identified themselves as Survivors, meaning they were born since January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated the laws of all 50 states with varying degrees of restrictions on abortion. The Court found them in violation of a recently discovered "right to privacy" that included the power to take human life in the womb.

These young people are alive because their mothers decided to bear them. Advocates of abortion emphasize that this decision is "personal," suggesting that no one should take that from women. But they ignore the fact that reassuring authority figures, from politicians to doctors, are pressuring them to "terminate" their pregnancies.

Take the case of M, who is pregnant with her first child, having waited nearly four years after marriage, but is having difficulty all during her pregnancy. Bed rest is prescribed, and the labor and delivery look to be yet another challenge. She is comfortably cared for in a hospital room that resembles a nursery, in which compassionate care givers want only what is best for her.

For those months of waiting the "choice" is gently proposed of avoiding all difficulty by a procedure which will eliminate the "problem" and postpone birth to some other pregnancy. But the young woman ignores the entreaties and goes ahead with 33 hours of labor and a difficult delivery anyway.

Then there is A, who has given birth in marriage, but that marriage is over and she has met another man who captures her heart but also gets her pregnant. There is no shame these days, it seems, in unwed pregnancy, but she is in the midst of her higher education and means to become a professional, a teacher it turns out. Abortion was a theoretical but not a real possibility for this young woman who, with the support of her family and church, gave this child up for adoption to a childless couple.

Finally, there is H, who has already given birth to two children and her husband has had a vasectomy so that their budget is not strained by another child. But, lo and behold, she learns that she is pregnant anyway, her husband’s timing being a little off. In a visit to her doctor she is told of a procedure known as amniocentesis, the results of which will tell her if hers is a healthy child and in particular whether it is a Downs Syndrome baby.

She surprises, nay, horrifies the doctor when she declares that she is not taking the test, for she is going to give birth to that child whatever its condition. The doctor can hardly believe what he is hearing and remonstrates with the young woman for not taking this "sensible" precaution. But H is adamant and when the doctor pushes back she says, "Go ahead and schedule the test but I won’t show up!"

The massive issue of abortion is dealt with every day by women such as these acting from their minds and hearts to do right by their children. But a powerful array of perhaps well-meaning but definitely misguided persons requires them to affirm what was rarely questioned in an allegedly less "enlightened" time. Then abortion was viewed as a criminal act that both threatened the health and life of the mother and was at war with her natural desire to give birth to a child.

Despite the legal status of abortion, abortionists are still not seen as respectable people, just as slave catchers were low on the list of possible friends despite centuries of legal slavery. "Law never made just what is by nature unjust," declared George Washington when speaking of Great Britain’s exploitation of colonists. Somehow, despite the easy choice of abortion, millions of women know that abortion is the wrong choice and refuse to make it. God bless them.