Pelosi and her Democratic friends are desperate. They just do not understand why the American public does not support a government takeover of the health care industry. She went as far as calling those ‘disrupting’ the town hall meetings un-American. She blames lobbyists for paying everyday Americans to purposely disrupt meetings with their homemade signs while at the same time setting loose their union attack dogs with their professionally made ones. Where would Pelosi be without hypocrisy. They were hoping to pass legislation before the break so they would not have to face this opposition. Obama is not stupid after all; he understands the politics of government intrusion. He has learned the lessons well over the years from his radical friends. We do have serious problems with government intervention into health care despite liberal denial and we also have serious questions. Questions that are not being answered truthfully. Some are not being answered because they do not want us to know their true intentions and some are not being answered because there are no answers. So here are some general questions that highlight some of the issues conservatives like me have with this legislation. Imagine what I could come up with if I spent a little more than 2 hours on it and actually dove into the specifics.
Please show me in the constitution where health care is defined as a right?
Name one government program that is run efficiently? Considering our experience with Medicare and Medicaid, why are we to expect this program to run any better?
Why did the Administration and Democratically lead Congress rush to get legislation passed before the summer recess? Was it to avoid the objections being voiced by the majority of Americans in town halls now being held across the country? The problems with our health care system have existed for decades. How could waiting another six months to pass legislation be such a big issue?
Congressmen and the President have claimed time and time again that those who want to keep their current health care will be able to. Independent studies have shown that as many as 114 million Americans may be forced onto a government run public option. Who is telling the truth and who is lying?
There are provisions in the legislation that are designed to push out private health care insurance over time as pointed out by the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation. It is also known through a released memo that it is a Democrat strategy to demonize private health insurance companies as big oil companies were for cap and trade. Knowing these facts, why should the American public trust that the government’s intent is not to take over the health care industry?
A big health care cost is medications. These drugs cost a lot of money, but it also takes billions and billions of dollars to research and produce them. How does this legislation address this problem? Does the government intend to subsidize the R&D of these drugs or should we expect a drastic drop in the development of new life saving drugs?
Do you agree with 20 House Democrats-as well as outside supporters of health reform like Jim Wallis from Sojourners-that any health care bill must ensure that federal taxpayer funds are not used to finance and expand abortion coverage? Would you commit to working with Speaker Pelosi to ensure that Members will at least have an opportunity for a specific vote on whether or not taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortion coverage? Furthermore, will you sign legislation if it arrives at your desk without provisions to prevent my tax dollars being used to kill unborn babies?
What would you say to Christians who feel having their tax dollars used for abortions infringes upon their religious beliefs? How would you respond to someone who refuses to pay the taxes associated with this legislation because of their religious beliefs?
Data shows that many people whose insurance will be subsidized practice unhealthy habits such has smoking, heavy drinking, and drug use. Outside of drug use, the government cannot force someone to not use these things. Do you think it is fair for my tax dollars to pay for health issues resulting from these bad habits? Will those subsidized be drug tested? How will you ensure that my tax dollars will not be used to care for drug users? On the same topic, you cannot force someone to live a healthy lifestyle. Do you plan on adding additional taxes on any food or drug the government deems unhealthy as you did with tobacco products earlier this year?
Facilities already exist that treat those with no health care insurance and/or cannot afford medical treatment. These facilities are known not to have the same level of care in areas such as wait time for treatment. Please explain to me how this legislation will prevent other facilities level of care from eroding considering they will now have to cover these same patients and in greater numbers?
Medicare and Medicaid are two programs where the government has already intervened into health care. These programs are absolute disasters and are running out of money. The CBO and other health care experts have testified that this legislation does not do anything to fix these programs. Why do you expect this intervention to be any different if you have not fixed the existing problems with programs the government already runs?
Over 50 government bureaucracies will be created with this legislation. Explain how each of these bureaucracies will work with the others and how this could possibly make things more efficient. If this legislation is not a government takeover of the health care industry, then why do these bureaucracies need to be created in the first place?
Why are the costs of the health care plan back loaded? Is it because you know the CBO calculates costs for 10 years? Those who promote this legislation give costs of $1.3 trillion which is very misleading. The actual estimated 10 year cost of this legislation is closer to $2.4 trillion. Why is this number not publicized?
Medicare fraud and other litigation are major reasons for high health care costs? Why does this legislation not address these issues? Why has Congress decided not to address these issues first before attempting to take on more responsibility in the health care industry?
Studies show that the CBO almost always underestimates the cost of government intervention such as this health care legislation. What makes you think that they have properly estimated the costs of this reform bill?
Do the cost estimates for this bill include increased use of the health care system by those who will be subsidized? History and common sense show this will occur. Those who are uninsured because they cannot afford it and will not have to pay into the new system will regularly go to a doctor for minor ailments that do not need doctor care because they are not paying for it. How is this addressed in the legislation?
Where will Canadians now go for quality health care? (sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Massachusetts has an eerily similar universal health care plan to the one being pushed by this administration. After only 3 years there are already some problems with paying for such a program. How is this legislation different than what was done in Massachusetts? How does the government intend on paying for such a health care program when tax revenues fall during a recession such as the one we have now?
How many jobs will be lost as a result of the $1.6 trillion nationalization of our health care industry? Is this something you have considered when reviewing health care legislation? NBER estimates that at least 5.5 million workers are at risk of losing their jobs due to the excessive taxes in the current legislation and this does not count probable job losses in the health care industry itself. Have you taken into consideration that businesses will have to reduce salaries and/or lay off workers to be profitable due to these taxes? Unlike your administration, businesses cannot just print more money.
Many of the “rich” that will incur extra taxes from this legislation are small business owners? Have you considered the effect this legislation and its additional taxes will have on these businesses and their families? Do you consider it fair that those who have worked extremely hard to better their lives and the lives of their families now have to carry the burden of health care for those who have not worked hard?
Why is there an insistence on having a public option in this legislation? The majority of people do not want this option. Why is it called the public option instead of government health insurance? Why is there an insistence on government intervention instead of working for a private free market solution? Co-ops are generally private exchanges and these have worked in the past. Why are Democrats in Congress offering a co-op option that is government run instead of privately run if they claim this is not a government takeover?
The public option has been championed as competition to private health insurance options. How does this legislation ensure fair competition when the government both creates the rules and runs one of the competitors? Experts have shown this not possible. Our experience with Fannie and Freddie is a fairly recent example that proves this point.
Why are there no provisions prohibiting cost effective measures from being used to delay or restrict life saving treatments for those on a government plan?
This legislation creates, expands or extends 33 entitlement programs. How does the expansion of entitlements (handouts) help with the health care cost burden our government already cannot afford?
The administration answered the CBO’s analysis that the legislation has no cost cutting provisions by adding yet another advisory board that would be used to cut costs. The CBO analysis of this move once again stated that this would not lead to cost savings. Besides not cutting costs, how would a board making decisions on what treatments could be covered not infringe on my ability to choose what treatments I wish to have?
President Obama is a proponent of a single payer government run health care system as are most liberals. President Obama says that a public option or government run Co-Op is not intended to and will not have the consequence of eventually eliminating private insurance leaving a single payer system. Barney Frank, Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein are among numerous others who say that a public option is a method to get a single payer system. Who is telling the truth and who is lying?
Some of these questions I came up with myself and some I found on various other sites, but they are all relevant to the debate. And these are the questions that are not getting answered. You can send these questions to the White House, but it is really a waste of time as you will just get a generic email response full of propaganda and no facts. I know because I got the same email response for two completely different questions. So I say email them around. Have people add to them. Send them to your congressmen and see if they can get answers from their Democrat counterparts. I am interested to see if they will answer them. Who knows; maybe it will force them to actually read this one to find the answers.
Comments on this entry are closed.