Yes, No, No, No, No, Yes

In our current environment of different rules for different people, I began to wonder exactly how the administration selects who will pay taxes and who won't, or who would get benefits and who wouldn't.  The process appears to bear a striking resemblance to the clip below.



In either case, the selection process appears to be based on size and determines who will get screwed and who won't.

Perfect Example Of Socialism

We keep hearing that health care is a crisis.  It's a crisis, everybody agrees it's a crisis.  Never mind that 60% of Americans are against the plan, everybody agrees.  We won't actually start covering new people for 5 years but it's a crisis.  And why is it a crisis?  It's because people have to file bankruptcy due to medical bills.  Some studies say that 60% of bankruptcies filed are due to medical expenses.  It is horrible that anybody ends up in that situation and my heart goes out to them, but if 1.5 million people file bankruptcy and 60% of those are due to medical bills, that means that 900 thousand people a year go bankrupt from medical expenses out of an adult population of 217.8 million.  This means that the percent of people who file bankruptcy due to medical expenses is less than one half of 1%.

In order to fix the problem for 0.4% of our population, Congress is willing to pass a health care bill that has the possibility of bankrupting the nation.  Therefore, instead of 0.4% of the population being bankrupt, we'll ALL be bankrupt.

This is the real problem with socialism.  It seeks "economic equality" or "economic justice".  The government and socialist policies cannot make us all equally wealthy, all they can do is make us equally poor.  The health care bill is the perfect example of what socialism really does.  It does not raise us all to the same high level, but reduces us all to the lowest common denominator.  Is that what we really want to be? 

Abortion is Not Health Care

Why is there any debate at all over whether or not abortion should be included in a health care bill.  I don't want the bill to pass so I'm glad this is a sticking point, but I still don't understand why it's an issue.  Abortion is not health care.  By insisting that it is included in this bill, they are equating an UNWANTED pregnancy with diabetes, heart disease, broken bones, cancer, etc.  It's ridiculous.  A woman who finds herself preganant and doesn't want a baby does not need an abortion for medical needs.  It's her personal choice of how to deal with her situation (and I believe the wrong one), but it's not a health care issue.

If we were to cover abortions would we cover other completely elective with no medically substantiated necessity procedures?  Are we going to cover tummy tucks and face lifts?  If we cover abortion are we going to cover infertility treatments?  Just because abortion is legal does not mean that it qualifies as health care under this type of legislation.

I know it's a horror that a woman will actually have to take responsibility for her own actions and pay for her own abortion.  Perhaps we can explain to her how buying a box of condoms (and actually using them) is much cheaper.

The more I've thought about this the more frustrated I've become.  There has been talk about charging fat people more for their health care because they'll cost more, well does that mean we charge sluts more for their health care coverage as well?  If a man or woman is premiscuous that has the potential to cost us a lot more money.  We'd have the treatment of the preganancy, veneral disease and AIDS.  The pharmacological costs of AIDS is astronomical so, according to Democrat philosophy, should anybody who has multiple partners within a single year have to pay more for their health coverage than somebody who doesn't?  They're a higher risk after all, and it's all due to their life choices.

This whole thing is just absurd.  The bottom line here is that, other than in a case of threats to the life of the mother, there is no MEDICAL reason for an abortion.  We should only be covering services that there is a medical reason to perform.  "I got knocked up and don't want no kid," is not a medical reason.

No New Ideas

Over and over and over again we hear the Democrats reciting their standard lines that Repbulicans have no new ideas, that they are repeating the failed policies of the past, blah, blah, blah.  But what new ideas do the Democrats have?  None.  They don't have a single idea that hasn't already been tried - and failed - in Europe.

Universal healthcare is a bankruptcy inducing mess in every country where it has been tried.  It leads to long wait times, rationing and higher taxes.  Sure, these programs work great as long as you're healthy, it's when you get sick and actually need the program that it really fails you.

Cap & Trade was tried in England actually resulted in an increase in carbon emissions, and tons of corruption within the program.  It has failed utterly and yet we are wanting to repeat that failure.

Why won't Congress actually copy actions that have actually been proven to work?  Like lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes.

So the new Democrat campaign slogan should be, "We won't repeat the failed Republican policies.  We'll repeat the failed European ones instead."

Sen Reid Compares Healthcare to Slavery

To counter the pleas of Republicans for the Democrats to slow down, step back and start over on a piece of legislation that has more patches slapped on it than a pair of 1970's bell bottom jeans, Harry Reid uses a comparison to legislation on slavery, civil rights and women's sufferage.  You've got to be kidding me!

As a justification for pushing ahead in spite of many questions and concerns on what will be covered, what it will cost and how it will be paid for, the Senate Majority Leader used a comparison to the abolition of slavery, the debates on civil rights, and the legislation for women's right to vote.  He says that at that time people were asking to slow down and step back but it was important to push forward.  I'll give him that.  Those issues were important to push forward, but it's insulting to compare government run healthcare to civil rights.

Setting aside the offensiveness of the comparison, there was also a major difference.  Slavery, civil rights and women's sufferage were all yes or no questions.  The healthcare debate is not a yes or no question but a legislative takover of a major part of our economy.

Oh, and of course the biggest difference. 
Slavery was abolished by Republican President Lincoln with the cries to slow down coming from Democrats. 
The civil rights legislation was initiated by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson but supported by Republican members of Congress, filibustered by Southern Democrats in the Senate and eventually passing.  Thank God.
The women's sufferage I may have to give to the Democrats because Republicans had control of both the Executive and Legislative branches for much of the fight and it was a Democrat President who spoke in support.  Although Wilson had not much choice since the women were using his own words spoken in support of WWI against him.

Does Harry Reid honestly believe that government run healthcare is as important to our nation as these fights for civil liberties?

Michele Obama Says "Let Them Eat Cake"

While unemployment rises, companies and individuals both are struggling to keep their heads above water and steadily losing ground, the Obama's throw the most elaborate White House State Dinner in a decade.

Among the attendees were Steven Spielberg, Alfre Woodard and M Knight Shamalan. Among the uninvited, the Republican leadership, thereby fulfilling Obama's promise of bipartisanship. Uh huh.

This all becomes even more important because of the "crashers" at this big shindig. The usual person with a clipboard and guest list was not at the door by the secret service because of "cost savings" initiatives. They didn't believe this would be necessary. Guess they were wrong, but of course they have no culpability whatsoever with the gate crashing. Not that they'll ever admit.

With all of the talk about the gate crashers the actual size and scope of the dinner itself hasn't been talked about much. Was it really necessary, in a time when government spending is out of control and unemployment is rising, to give such a large and elaborate "dinner" event?

Now, a full year after his election, Obama is finally getting around to looking into the whole job issue. A lower priority than healthcare, climate change, date night and parties. The so called jobs summit, like the state dinner, excludes anybody with a dissenting opinion from his own and will be as ineffectual as his speech at West Point.

The Obama's appear to be living high while showing a disregard for those of us struggling in a troubled economy that he plans to cripple even further, and possibly permanently, with his pet projects. His dogged and unrelenting pursuit of these projects in the face rising voter disapproval and the negative impact to the economy shows a contempt for the average person. He and Michele might as well go on TV and say, "Let them eat cake."

Curious about how much the dinner alone, excluding the cost of the crasher fiasco, cost the taxpayers I was unable to find a hard number. Part of that transparency that we were promised. All I could find were comments that it cost over $1 million. I do not begrudge the cost of a state dinner. I understand they are necessary and we can't very well serve our visitors fried spam and mac & cheese, but this could definitely have been done on a smaller (and cheaper) scale.

I suddenly have an image of Obama, with his usual chin in the air - eyes down the nose look at America said with gravity, "I know you are struggling and we are working dilligently to solve the problems that the failed policies of the past created," then breaking into a grin, throwing up his arms and screaming, "But tonight Michele and I are going to PAR - TAY!"

Misinformation Volume III

The third piece of so called misinformation is that the public option will put private insurance out of business. Obama says this isn't true, so I guess that's the end of the argument, unless of course we want to do the unthinkable and apply some logic and deductive reasoning to the situation. How very unamerican of me.

Competition is a good thing, it is the cornerstone of capitalism and controls costs by giving the people an option and the companies an incentive to keep costs low. Competition within the insurance industry is good as well and the industry is seeking to eliminate waste and reduce costs because there is not a current monopoly. There are several different companies all competing for the same market share and good coverage at a reasonable prices is what they are all striving for. So I'm not averse to fair competition; as a capitalist I know we need it to keep things working the way they should. But we need fair competition.

The big problem with the public option competing with the private sector is that the public option will be non-profit while the private sector needs to make a profit, therefore the private sector will not be able to compete with the public option on price, but never fear, there are other ways to compete, right?

The private sector could offer different types of plans, setting themselves apart from the public option and giving people a choice -- Or they could if HR 3200 didn't specify that they will have to offer what is deemed "acceptable" by the same people writing the public option.

The private sector could continue to work with companies who decide to be self-insured and change their line of business to administering these plans -- Or they could if HR 3200 did not give government the right to decide whether or not a company can self-insure.

So by page 24 of HR 3200 the real competitive options have already been eliminated by dictating what insurance will have to cover, and by taking the option of self-insuring from other companies. After those two options for competition are eliminated, what is left? Not much.

The bill is not written with the statement that private insurance will be eliminated, but the 5 year grace period for employer based benefits before they must comply with government "standards" and the limitations it places on competition will lead things in that direction.

Ignoring the fact that there is a possibility that the public option will drive private insurance companies out of business is irresponsible and short sighted. President Obama uses the Post Office as the shining example of competition between the private sector and a public option, but let's not forget that the post office is bankrupt and continuously raising prices; is this what we want for our health care? So maybe there is hope. If the public option in health care works as well as the post office then there won't be a problem, but on the other hand, the post office doesn't dictate to UPS and FedEx what services they have to provide or how much they can make. Nor does the post office give themselves the prevent private companies from using other carriers.

Where it not for the language in HR 3200 which limited the options for competition I would not be worried, but that language is there; and as long as it is I will see an uneven playing field designed to make one side the winner and one the loser.

Misinformation Volume II

The idea that a new government program for health care will explode the deficit or cause an increase in taxes is "misinformation" according to the white house. President Obama (I really hate having to type that) has stated firmly and repeatedly that the program will be deficit neutral so why do we insist on applying our own brands of logic to the claims?

Obama says deficit neutral but the Congressional Budget Office says $1 trillion in set up and then an explosion of costs.

Obama says that Medicare is bankrupting us so the best solution is to expand it to everybody. (I still haven't figured out how that is logical.)

Obama says that he can pay for it with savings from cost controls. Ummmm, OK. What are those cost controls going to be exactly? Will it have anything to do with stopping doctors from whacking off your limbs willy nilly in an attempt to charge you more?

Obama says that by having everybody covered the costs will go down because people won't be going to the ER as much, but aren't the highest volume of people using the ER those already on Medicaid? I'm missing the logic again.

Obama says that he won't vote for any bill that grows the federal deficit - this claim is a little hard to swallow considering that he's already quadrupled it in 6 months. Yep, Mr President, we can see you're a real fiscal conservative.

As a cost savings initiative Obama plans to lower the re-imbursement rate to health care providers for the services they give Medicare patients. The re-imbursement rates are already pretty low so if they go much lower it's going to start costing the doctors to do the test. Forget making money, they'll be bleeding it.

Hmmmm, an interesting way to implement rationing isn't it. If the government tells a doctor they will be re-imbursed $1,000 less than their costs for a particular procedure how long do you think those procedures will continue to be performed? If it's a break even I think many doctors would still do it, but if it throws them into a negative balance I can't see them continuing. Wouldn't it be interesting to require a bailout of our medical professionals due to the new Medicare re-imbursement rates. Especially since Obama already think the doctors get $30,000 - $50,000 for taking your foot when they actually only get #350 -$750. He's only 10 times higher than the actual so we should definitely be able to trust his numbers.

There are only 2 ways to make the public option (path to single payer) deficit neutral and that is to either raise taxes or to charge premiums for the public option which will cover the medical cost payout. Considering that the people don't want or can't afford the premiums of the private sector, I doubt the public option would look much better.

How about you first do a little research, real analysis into what is driving the cost of health care up. Hire an independent team of process improvement analysts to determine exactly where the issues lie (because I frankly doubt that doctors really are cutting off people's feet just to get more money) and fixing those first and see how it goes.

One last little tidbit that I just have to share -- As much as Obama talks about the importance of routine care and how we need to expand Medicare type coverage to all, he might want to keep in mind that routine care is not covered under Medicare.

Misinformation Vol I

The largest piece of misinformation that Obama is perpetually poo pooing is that he supports a single payer system. So where did the pesky American people who, will believe anything, get that silly little idea. It couldn't have anything to do what he has actually said could it?

As far back as 2003 (wasn't he still in the state legislature at that point) Obama said that he was a proponent of a single payer system, but I guess he could change his mind about that; it's just not right to hold him to what he said 6 whole years ago.

More recently Obama has said that we have an "illegitimate" concern that the public option is a trojan horse for a single payer system. He's right about that. They don't have their goals hidden in anything but their own rhetoric, but I don't see the concern over moving to a single payer as illegitimate.

In May of 2007 at a health forum for the SEIU Obama said "My commitment is to ensure that we have universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.....But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately" (so we are going to eliminate it eventually?) "There is going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.." So eliminating employer coverage eventually is the goal? But that was still a whole 2 years ago. How could we possibly hold him to something he said that long ago. Silly, silly us.

On the campaign trail Obama told us that he was going to lower costs by taking on the insurance companies and make them lower their premiums while offering to the uninsured the option to join a government plan or policy. How exactly can they force the insurance companies to lower their premiums? Would this be the government dictating prices in the private industry? And what if the insurance companies can't cover their costs with the premiums set at the government approved amount? Wouldn't the companies then go out of business leaving only the government option -- the single payer? Sounds like that to me. But again, this was back in Octoboer of 2008, ten whole months ago. Anything can change in ten months.

Next we have Barney Frank stating that the public option is the best path to the single payer system, and numerous other congressmen touting that the public option will put the private companies out of work and achieve their ultimate goal of a single payer system. A goal which Obama himself validated with his previous statements.

So what are we supposed to believe? Is it really misinformation to question what is said now against what was said in the past, or is that just being a smart consumer? Since we'll be the ones paying for this health care plan, in essence the buyer of the product they're pitching, shouldn't we question the integrity of the marketing plan?

According to Obama now, as compared to Obama ten months ago, and according to Robert Gibbs, we should ignore all of the previous statements and believe what Obama says now. A politician would never lie to the American people in order to get what he wants.....would he?

Misinformation

At his town hall yesterday President Obama stated that there is a lot of misinformation floating around about health care reform and this is why support for the plan is dropping. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated this today and blamed the press for the misinformation; but what is the misinformation?

I'm going to do a series of blogs on these issues to delve into them in more detail, but here is an overview of what they are calling misinformation and I call deductive reasoning.

We will go to a single payor system - the leadership keeps telling us that there will not be a single payor system but there will be a public option. However, many of the leaders, Obama included, have previously said that the public option will be the lead to a single payor system. In March 2007 Obama stated that he would not be able to do away with employer paid health benefits immediately but believed we could accomplish a single payor system within ten years. -- Is believing the plan is to get us to a single payor system really misinformation?

The reform will explode the deficit or increase taxes - Obama says it will be deficit neutral but the Congressional Budget Office said it will cost $1 trillion just for start-up. So who is putting out the misinformation? Is it Obama or the CBO?

The Public Option will eliminate private insurance - The leadership says this will be a plan to compete with private insurance and they can work together, however private insurance will have to make a profit while the public option can operate at a loss subsidized by tax-payor dollars. If Medicare was working like private insurance now and not operatiing at a loss then it would cost the government nothing. By expanding a Medicare type benefit to all it is an acknowledgement that it will be subsidized where private insurance will not.

There will be rationing of care - Obama says there will be no rationing and yet his advisors have written papers on who should take priority in the case of a shortage. Also, a government board will be created to determine benefits and what to do when adding 40 million patients to already overloaded physicians.

Abortions will be covered under the government plan - Leadership says this will not happen while other leaders are insisting it will.

Robert Gibbs said this is all a case of he said / she said and this is how the misinformation is getting out there, but considering there is no final bill to work from isn't all we have to go on what people are saying?

What I think I object to most is applying deductive reasoning to the situation and coming to a conclusion and then being told that I'm wrong - that I'm spreading misinformation - and given no facts to back it up.

Government Mandated Abortion Coverage

One of the issues being debated on the national healthcare issue is whether or not abortion should be covered under the plan. But it goes even further than that to a requirement that ALL plans cover abortions. So the government will force companies to offer abortion coverage to their members. So what's wrong with this? It's a medical procedure, right?

Here's how I see it, because I'm sure you're just dying to know. Any abortions that are truly medically necessary due to a threat against the life of the mother is between the woman and her doctor and that can be argued as a medically necessary procedure. However, an abortion just because a woman got knocked up and doesn't want a baby is not a medically necessary procedure. It is a completely elective procedure that treats neither an illness nor an injury, and that's what the healtchare coverage should be about. Preventative check-ups and the treatment of an illness or injury.

If the government is going to dictate the coverage of abortion, are they also going to dictate the coverage of infertility treatments? If you can receive treatment for being pregnant and not wanting a baby can you also receive treatment for not being pregnant and wanting a baby? And why stop there? If we're going to cover elective surgeries, paying to have things done just because of what you want and not what you need (nobody NEEDS to have an abortion as a form of birth control) then are we also going to cover cosmetic services? I can argue that I would be a lot healthier with liposuction and a tummy tuck, so will that be covered under the new government plan? That's a great way to control the costs.

How can the government mandate that private companies offer a procedure that is not medically necessary and may be against what the company stands for? Think about this for a minute. The government would be forcing the Catholic Archdiocese to cover abortion. The government would be forcing catholic hospital organizations and churches of all denominations to offer abortion coverage to their employees. They will be forced to offer something they find morally reprehensible, and for what reason? This is not a treatment of illness or injury but a totally elective procedure.

The argument is being made that abortion is legal in this country and it is a medical procedure, but so is a boob job, rhinoplasty, a face lift, etc, but these are not covered under most medical plans. Why should the rest of us pay for the irresponsibility of another. If the woman didn't want to have a baby, there are other forms of birth control out there that she should have used. So now not only does she not have to deal with the consequences of her actions in the form of the pregnancy, but she won't even have to bear the cost of the abortion herself.

It is insanity to require coverage of a procedure who's only purpose is to extinguish human life and call it healthcare.

Why A Government Option?

When it comes to healthcare reform it's become pretty obvious that the Liberal Democrats in congress want a public option, government run and paid, and a free market solution is not to be considered. But now a fee market solution is on the table. And I like it.

Arizona Representative John Shadegg has come up with a healthcare reform bill which encourages patient choice and competition. The only role the government would play would be to assist people who are unable to afford insurance to pay for the plan of their choice. Imagine if you could shop for your health insurance the way you shop for your car insurance or, for that matter, how you shop for the car itself.

This would empower the consumer of healthcare by allowing them to choose the plan that best suits them, and not relying solely on what their employer offers. If you prefer alternative medicine, you could find a plan that covers that. If you have a pre-existing condition, you could find a plan that doesn't exclude that. If you want only catastrophic coverage, you could get that kind of plan. You could choose something that really meets your own individual needs. This would also enable you to choose a plan that your doctor participates in instead of choosing a doctor from your plan. The cost of the plan would also come into play. The competition on price would necessarily drive the price down.

So why does a healthcare bill that empowers the consumer to control their own plan and encourages competition have little to no chance of passing? Possibly because it does nothing to increase the power of the federal government. This is really the main goal of many of those in our Congress today. And in years past.

If you, like me, like John Shadegg's idea, please let your Congressmen know. There will be no chance of this being considered if we the people do not let our representative in congress know that this is what we want. Without the pressure from us, they will pass the bill that is less concerned with our benefit, than with the increase of their own power.

I offer you this challenge, when a bill is proposed in Congress and up for a vote, ask yourself whether or not that new law will increase the power of the federal government. Then ask yourself if the same end could have been achieved without an increase in federal power. You might be surprised by what you find.


All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson

A Hypochonriac's Dream

I'm going to start this out by saying that I don't go to the doctor unless I'm dying. Or at least I think I am. I broke my arm a few years ago and it took me 3 days to go to the ER because I was sure it was just a sprain and it would heal on it's own. When it swelled up like a rubber glove balloon, I finally went to the doctor. I drove myself. This becomes relevant with the information below.

Do we really want healthcare to be cheap? Changing from the old indemnity plans (deductible then 80% paid) to the HMO actually drove the cost of healthcare up! This was because the cost was so low for the consumer that they went to the doctor for everything. Costs went up because demand went up, but availability stayed the same. Do we really want everybody to be able to afford to go for every little thing? Isn't that just a hypochondriac's dream? And we the people would be footing the bill for somebody else's neuroses.

I'm not saying that the access should be expensive, but it should stop and make you think about whether you really need to go to the doctor, or if it's something you can handle yourself. Taking the patient's responsibility for the cost out of the equation will only increase demand, without increasing the supply, and then our healthcare system turns into one giant Black Friday.

If people will beat each other up over the last hot toy on sale, what will they do in order to be able to see the last available doctor?

If you have a product that you want people to use, that you want them to buy, you put it on sale or just decrease the cost. This makes it more attractive and you'll sell more. The problem with doing this with the healthcare system is that we don't have any more healthcare to offer. We're already down to a back order situation. So is it really smart to put what's already on back order on sale?

My big question is whether the people like me will even be able to get in to the see the doctor, or whether the available resources will be taken up by the hypochondriacs giddy with the fire sale of their favorite product.

What do you think?

Insurance - What You May Not Know

There is an important part of medical insurance coverage that many people are unaware of. This is that your employer may actually be paying more than your premium, they may be paying your medical bills.

There are 2 different types of funding arrangements when it comes to health insurance. The first, the one most people associate with insurance, is that the insurance company pays all your bills and administers your plan. They offer standard benefits with some options, you select what you want, and pay the premium. This type of coverage is subject to state mandates and the oversights and rules of the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners).

But there is another finding type. This one is commonly referred to as either Self-Funded or Administrative Services Only. In this situation an employer writes their own benefit plan, deciding what they will cover and what they will not, and what the deductible, copay and benefit percentage will be. The employer then absorbs the cost of those medical bills and pays an insurance company to administer the plan that they themselves have written. Most of the large employers in the country offer this type of coverage. These plans are also not subject to the rules of the NAIC, so should the government pass regulations on what must be covered or what deductibles have to be, since these are not insurance companies, they would not be subject to these regulations.

As a result of how these are funded, the cost of the employee health benefit may be much more than we think it is. Knowing that, could we really blame employers if they stopped offering health care coverage to their employees if a government option is created? Eliminating that benefit could potentially save employers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Having all of these different plans also increases the administrative costs of insurance. Things are much easier to admminister if it's a cookie cutter plan. But when things vary greatly from one employer group to another, the administration of the plans becomes more complicated, and the administrative costs go up. So should the government offer that cookie cutter plan only, they will have an administrative cost advantage as a result. Of course you won't have as many options, but they know more about what we need than we do anyway, right?

Although we are told we will still have the option to keep the health care plan we have if we are satisfied with it, how can we do that if our employer decides not to offer it? And their incentive to no longer offer it will be high. So here we have another unintended consequence of legislation which our leaders are not considering.

I Guess Blue Cross, Aetna, Cigna and UHC Aren't Too Big To Fail

In discussion around the Obama healthcare plan and why it is the perfect solution to all of the world's problems, a statement was made this morning that we would "get rid of" the insurance companies. That was one of the main ways that the cost of health care would come down. I'm not saying that insurance isn't contributing to the cost in some ways, but it's also working to control it. To say we will "get rid of" the insurance companies is a pretty bold statement.

I've been searching the net but can't find a definitive count of how many people the medical insurance industry employees, but I'm guessing it's a pretty hefty number. So it's OK for these healthy companies to fail due to a government program, but it's not OK for unsuccessful companies to fail because of their own bad decisions.

This is the new fairness being instituted by our current administration

Why Do We Want To Be What We Fought To Escape?

Obama seems bound and determined to turn us into England. But didn't we fight the revolution so we weren't England? And why would we want to be them anyway?

The English people are the most filmed and photographed by their government. All things that the ACLU would pitch a fit over if it as anybody but Obama headed that way. So is that what we want?

Nationalized healthcare in England is the model that Obama wants to use. The administration says that our current system is failing the people who can't get care. So does the British method fail no one? Don't think so. They already found out that totally socialized medicine doesn't work and had to reintroduce some free market health care back into the system. I have a friend over there who had to drive her father 4 hours for a procedure. Not because there was nowhere nearer that could do it, but the place that could do it had already met it's cap for that procedure for the year. So they had to search to find someplace who had not. This is exactly what we want to do.

How about taxes. They just hiked their tax rate to 50% and isn't that VAT thing done over there as well. So you pay an additional 20% on purchases. That's for that FREE healthcare thing. Gas prices about $7 a gallon. That's where we want to go.

Our founding principles and our Constitution was set up so that we would NOT become Great Britain. So why are we abandoning that philosophy now to follow in the steps of a country we have traditionally led?

Healhcare Is My Top Priority - Except For Appointments

Our current president ran on a platform that stressed the importance of health care for all Americans. He thinks it is so important that he and Congress are trying to rush through legislation on creating Government run health care with very little debate. However, although he has had the time to appoint 9 different Czars (including a car Czar), and he had time to create positions for Czars which didn't exist under any other president, what he didn't have time to do was appoint the cabinet and sub-cabinet positions that have to do with health care.

His protestations that ensuring health care for every American rings a little hollow when he has yet to appoint even a Surgeon General. In this current Swine Flu potential crisis, we don't even have a director of the CDC. Obama hasn't gotten around to appointing one yet.

Czars - 9, Approved Health care appointments - 0. Perhaps President Obama needs a Czar on cabinet appointments to advise him on how to get them done.