Bill's Blog

2017-08-01

ObamaCare seems to be a clever ploy on the part of the Democratic party to introduce single-payer health care. The uninsurable have been given a taste of subsidized treatments. This is an entitlement that has no relationship to insurance as we have known it: i.e., you cannot buy fire insurance on your house after it has burned down, (or exploitable automobile insurance after your wreck). Having said that, it must be recognized that our modern society cannot ignore human suffering by refusing to treat medical problems because they manifested before an insurance policy could be secured. Yet, to do so is not "insurance."

What will happen, now? You cannot revoke an "entitlement" once it has been bestowed. This is the reason the Republicans in Congress are currently paralyzed on canceling ObamaCare. They have fallen victim to the aforementioned clever ploy by the Democrats in their offering of what is effectively an entitlement. There is no "going back." Not without a revolution. Since ObamaCare was designed to fail, there will soon be no commercial insurance companies willing to operate at a loss. Then there will be a demand for a replacement system to provide the promised benefits even though there is not currently a sufficient source of funding to support it. The only answer to this is a single-payer system. If this becomes a federal agency, we are doomed. If it can become a coalition of investor-owned insurance companies serving under federal guidelines, we have a chance to survive. Just look at the Veterans Administration if you need an example of the tender care provided by our federal government.

What about the single-payer system? The only way for this to work is that all citizens must pay into it even when they are young and healthy (this could provide sufficient funding). Currently, they do not. Young people do not usually feel threatened by health issues and are reluctant to pay for services they feel are unneeded. I was the same in my 20's. The vast majority of medical costs tend to occur in the latter years of our lives. That is the danger of federal control of health care. Some bureaucrat could decide that you are too old and useless for the kidney dialysis treatment you need to stay alive; or the cataract operation you need to continue reading. Maybe you are mentally cognizant and still creative but suffering from an age-related disease that requires treatment. This would be readily available to a somewhat younger "productive" individual. What if you had saved personal funds for this eventuality but were denied the use thereof due to some federal law? This prohibition was in the health care revision planned by Hillary Clinton in 1993 when she was designing her health care plan. The physician providing this "bootleg" service could have been sent to prison for "operating outside the system."

I do not advocate extreme life-saving measures to individuals beyond their capacity to appreciate their existence and awareness of their surroundings; i.e., a heart-lung transplant on a 95 year old patient with dementia could hardly be justified. In this case, just let nature take its course. However, if I am fully cognizant of my surroundings with a desire to live and can afford an expensive medical procedure due to my financial savings, then allow me to pay for and receive the treatment. Don't let some federal committee or bureau decide my existence! Dammit!

2017-06-21

Today, I am rejoicing at the Republican victory at "Geogia 6." The democrats spent a record budget of millions of dollars from Hollywood and the Democrat coastal enclaves to embarrass President Trump in a pseudo-referendum of Trump policies. Instead, Karen Handel (Rep) beat Jon Ossoff (Dem) by 53% / 47%; actually a 5 point lead. It wasn't even close - in spite of the overwhelming Democrat national effort to buy a victory. Much of the credit goes to Georgians who flatly resented outside influence on choosing their state representative to Congress. The rest goes to the stalwart conservative voters of the district who came out in the rain and voted to preserve their legacy. Out-of-state democrats have been whining that the vote was not fair because of the rain. Go figure.

Back to Main Page