Healthcare Reform and Government Dependence

The current Healthcare Reform debate is quickly polarizing the country around two extremes. Government DEPENDENCE versus Man's INDEPENDENCE. The Founding Fathers believed that their work for a new government which led to the penning of the most incredible document ever written by men, was to secure the rights and liberties of a free thinking citizenry. Never was it to create an overseeing entity that balanced the playing field between the "haves" and the "have nots". In fact, the freedoms finally secured in 1789 could boil down to this basic thought: because of the U.S. Constitution if you are included in the "have nots" you have every opportunity to work, toil, gather and save so that you can join the "haves". You also have the right to NOT work, toil, gather and save - but do not expect anyone else to carry your load. Hence "Freedom is a two-sided coin, on one side is Liberty but on the other is Responsibility."

Two clips stood out to me in the recent news coverage of the now national debate. I listened to a freedom loving citizen offer an analogy of health coverage having to do with cars. He started with, "I might like to drive a Hummer, but I can't afford one. I drive what I can afford." Only to be interrupted by a "dependabot", furious because she apparently thinks that everyone should drive a Hummer (or rather that everyone deserves the same health care coverage). In the United States of America no one deserves anything but OPPORTUNITY! The gentleman who never got the chance (on camera) to finish his example was simply saying that there are wonderful programs, vehicles, opportunities out there but we must work for them.

Granted, there are extremes that need attention. The woman who was so upset was quick to lift up her child who has medical needs that go beyond their means. The answer for her family could certainly be a compassionate citizenry that is willing to help. But why should she be looking for a government handout? Later, when given more "facetime" for her issues, she stated that pre-existing condtions disqualify her family from decent health insurance. (Read "it doesn't matter what her specfics are, she deserves as much as anyone else") However, it is government regulation and bureaucracy that have caused the problems with Health Insurance as it is. And regardless, there is not one doctor or hospital that would deny her and her family care if they have need - this woman simply doesn't want to pay for it. Hmmmm. She wants a Hummer for the cost of a Hyundai!

The second statement was a woman who basically made this comment: "When my child has a cough I want to know what's wrong with her, not just go and get some Robitussin and hope that she will be alright." What? Where is the common sense? Our grandmothers and mothers, in most cases, could "doctor" a cold, sniffle or cough. But because we now live in a dependent society, the first option is run to a doctor or fly to the emergency room! Where is the common sense? If our nation devolves into mindless takers rather than thoughtful givers, there will be no hope. Our current government is basically saying "believe in us, rely on us, depend on us" which will eventually lead to "work for us, obey us, worship us". And after 2000 years original slavery will have returned and freedom will be no more. It must not happen!

The government, designed to order and protect society, has gradually eroded our freedoms and inserted themselves into every area of our lives. Freedom must be restored. Government must be smaller, citizens must be involved and our "elected aristocracy" must be replaced. I believe it was Gerald Ford by way of Barry Goldwater who said, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." We may already be there, pray that we can recover!

Obamacare: cure? or curse!

Obamacare: Cure Or Curse?

By Louis R. Petolicchio

With recent news that the “Blue Dog Democrats” – Congressional Democrats reputed to be fiscally conservative or ‘moderate’ – have reached an agreement with liberal Democrat leader Henry Waxman (D-CA) on a ‘compromise’ version of national health care reform (referred to here as “Obamacare”), it would appear that the federal government is on target to take over America’s vast and advanced medical industry.

Advocates have praised the movement towards nationalizing how medicine and medical services are delivered to the American people, particularly the 50 million plus-or-minus uninsured who have been the focus of Obama’s great angst. Critics have been raising a host of concerns that Obamacare is the first step towards a federally funded, single payer program that would eliminate individual choice of doctors and treatment.

While some may say that both sides on the issue may have valid arguments and are using hyperbole to discredit each other, if one begins to review the House that is under consideration (HB 3200), the case against Obamacare grows stronger and stronger.

In the past week a document by Peter Fleckstein has been circulating through the Internet that essentially outlines some of the most outrageous and disturbing elements of Obamacare, many of which directly contradict the claims Obama has been making in his efforts to promote this overhaul.

All of which raises some serious questions that Pennsylvania’s confirmed liberal Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, as well as Congressmen like Tim Holden who claim to be Blue Dogs, should be forced to account for:

• Should the federal government decide for every individual what medical treatments we should receive? (Section 123 establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to determine who gets what treatment)
• Should the federal government have the access to every individual’s private medical history? (Section 142 outlines the ‘collection of data’ as one of the duties of the ‘Health Commissioner’)
• Should illegal immigrants and non-citizens be provided health care coverage? (Section 152 provides blanket coverage to everyone without regard to US citizenship)
• Should the federal government have real-time access to every individual’s private financial records? (Section 1173A outlines the use of real-time access information to determine medical coverage concurrent with implementation of a national health ID card)
• Should the private health insurance plans be forced into the national program regardless of the desires of the individual participants? (Section 202 outlines the creation of a ‘Health Insurance Exchange)
• Should the federal government have the authority to ration healthcare for the American people? (Section 203 outlines the authority granted to the Commissioner to establish a ‘permissible range of cost-sharing’)
• Should the states be forced to restrict the coverage mandates approved by their own representative bodies? (Section 203 requires states to reimburse the federal government for any state requirements that exceed federal minimums)
• Should the federal government have the authority to mandate cultural and linguistic services (Section 204.b.7 states: “The entity shall provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services”; Section 1122 reinforces these type of services)
• Should the federal government have the power to tax private individuals who choose not to participate in a health plan not approved by the federal government? (Section 207 outlines how individuals and employers will be taxed for not providing “acceptable coverage”; reiterated in Section 322 and Section 401)
• Should the federal government have the authority to interfere with the compensation relationship between the private individual and their respective physician? (Section 224 notes that “payment mechanisms and policies under this section may include patient-centered medical home and other care management payments, accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, bundling of services, differential payment rates, performance or utilization based payments, partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers”)
• Who will pay for the treatment of illegal aliens? (Section 152 provides blanket coverage to everyone without regard to US citizenship while Section 246 prohibits payments for those not legally present in the US)
• When is a tax not a tax? (Section 59B.e.6 states: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax…”)
• Should the federal government have the authority to control the productivity of medical service providers? (Section 1131 outlines those providers subject to federal quality oversight, including ambulatory and laboratory services)
• Should the federal government interfere with the physician/patient relationship with regards to hospital readmissions? (Section 1151 outlines how the national program will be applied to limit readmissions)
• Should the federal government interfere with the physician/patient relationship with regards to post acute care services? (Section 1152 outlines how the national program will be applied to control post acute care services)
• Should the federal government control the expansion of hospital facilities? (Section 1156 outlines how the national program will impact the expansion of medical facilities)
• Should the federal government determine whether special needs individuals should be eligible for health care services? (Section 1177 indicates that a cost analysis will be completed to determine the impact of costs as related to special needs individuals)
• Should the federal government manage individual healthcare without involvement of a local physician? (Section 1191 outlines implementation of a ‘telehealth’ [health care by phone?] system)
• Why should the federal government provide end-of-life counseling to participants in the national health plan? (Section 1233 outlines the use of ‘Advanced Care Planning Consultation’ including counseling for end-of-life services and supports)

Where do Pennsylvania’s federal legislators stand on these questions? Do they really think that the same government that spends $600 for a toilet seat and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for Social Security bureaucrats to dance in Arizona can efficiently manage the American medical system?

Do Casey, Specter, Holden, Murphy and the other liberals who make up this commonwealth’s Democrat delegation, actually embrace such meddling in our individual health plans and our individual physicians? Do they really think the federal government has been granted the authority by the Constitution to tell doctors what to do and what medical treatments a sick individual should receive? Are they such tyrants that they want to steal away so much of our God-given liberties?

Ironically, the Obamacare bill does not simply relate to the creation of a national health care program. Multiple references are made throughout that amended the Social Security Act, Medicare, the federal tax code, and many other areas. To say that the Obamacare bill is sweeping in its nature is an understatement.

And need mention be made of the fact that there is no way to tell how this program will be fully funded?

Presuming neither the House nor the Senate actually try to sneak a vote in before their August recess, it is imperative for the people of Pennsylvania to challenge their legislators and demand both an accounting for their support of Obamacare. Opponents of Obamacare must make it clear in no uncertain terms that political careers are on the line, and must remain vigilante and vocal in publicly fighting this assault on American liberty.

Freedom Is Not Free - (and neither is anything else!)

The catch phrase for Memorial Day is almost always "Freedom is not free". It is a powerful statement as we consider the sacrifices of thousands of American patriots over the years. From our very foundations (the signers of the Declaration felt certain that they would pay the ultimate price for their independence - and signed anyway!) the cost of freedom was always heavy but most definitely worth it. For more than two centuries true Americans have placed blood value on the liberties we enjoy, but more and more we are surrounded by a society of citizens that believe the cost should be paid by someone else. Someone else's ideas. Someone else's sweat. Someone else's money and someone else's expense. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
When the Continental Army marched to fight against the British soldiers, they willingly faced the greatest army in the world at that time. Each colonial soldier knew that his life might quickly end with the sound of a shot or the slash of a saber yet on he marched. At home was his family who knew he was not fighting for the privileges that some government or king would grant him, but rather for the rights guaranteed by the Creator. He knew that those rights did not provide for his needs, his cares or even his safety - he knew only that the ultimate prize of this "revolutionary" war would be opportunity. Opportunity to choose his own path in an ordered civilization, to exercise his own judgment in a civil society and to control his own destiny in the sight of God. He probably also realized that the pendulum of opportunity swung from the heights of success to the depths of failure however, in a truly free country, the key is that the pendulum keeps swinging!
Freedom is not free and it was never meant to be. There is always a price to pay. Patrick Henry realized that, for those who did not truly value life as dear or peace as sweet, freedom might be purchased at the cost of chains and slavery. That's the price that many are willing to pay in this current day. Prevent "climate change"; Provide healthcare; Save the banks; Supplement the industries; Tax the rich - tax the poor spend it all and tax some more. And at every turn more indpendent thinkers, innovative workers and industrious citizens are enslaved and chained. The pendulum is slowing and soon all opportunity will be lost. When will America wake up?