The healthcare debate is another glaring example of a mainstream news media with an agenda that is congruent with that of the administration. Most of what has passed as news reporting during this debate has been the usual bleeding heart stories of people dying or going bankrupt without access to healthcare, the typical misleading statistics (47 million people without insurance). Not contented with just distorting the facts of the debate, the media then took it upon themselves to launch attacks on those citizens who had the nerve to show up at town hall meetings to express their feelings about government run healthcare.
Yet, the most obvious reporting that has been totally ignored is the status of government run healthcare in other countries. In all instances, these countries report long waits and rationing of services, a shortage of providers, and spiraling costs. (France is looking to reform their model and is actually looking at elements of the current free market practices in the U.S.)
If our mainstream news media is hesitant to go abroad to bring this story of failure to the public, they need only to look a bit to the north of where most of them sit, to the state of Massachusetts. This state’s healthcare model, which was sponsored by Mitt Romney, is very similar to the plans coming out of congress. Although only being in existence a few short years, it is already being deemed a failure. By most reports the program “in practice has been a colossal failure, expanding state bureaucracy and government control over the health care market and provider-patient dealings, while simultaneously driving up health insurance premia, increasing health care costs, and creating a chronic shortage of providers – all at an annual price tag of over twice the originally-estimated $600 million.” This is the fate of all government run healthcare, and one cannot point to a country on the face of this earth that has achieved varying results.
As we contemplate turning over 17% of our GNP, as well as our lives and future well-being over to the political class, the Massachusetts experiment would seem to be a worthwhile news story. It is not.
On the other hand, maybe the mainstream media reporting of the Massachusetts experiment would not change a thing. Even without fair reporting on this issue, there has been an historic firestorm of protest, and by a growing majority the American people do not favor government run healthcare. Yet, in spite of this outcry, the Obama administration and its congress are intent on jamming this failed concept down our throats, and, at a time when this country can ill afford it.
Why would our government put in place a program that has failed everywhere it has been implemented, and that they know will certainly fail here? The answer is that this debate is not about healthcare, it is about establishing government control over people’s lives and liberty.
Although this will surely be political suicide for the Democratic Party, Peacock’s prediction is that they will put the gun to their head as government run healthcare has been the holy grail of liberalism for well over 70 years, and they know this is their last chance to achieve it. If they cannot strong-arm or buy 60 votes, they will ram it through in the middle of the night with 51 votes.
All of this without any real public debate.
In short, the Democrats believe this legislation is the hallmark of a social democracy, and you just cannot be one without it.
Popularity: 28% [?]
1:09 pm on November 3rd, 2009 -
The debate over healthcare reform is confusing because the idea is embraced by many, but for widely different reasons.
When the average American worker and business owner sees increases in healthcare premiums that, year after year, are ten-fold the cost of inflation, it’s not surprising that something needs to be done to stop the spiraling cost of staying healthy and insured.
Congressional liberals, on the other hand, want to give free healthcare to 15% of the population’s uninsured, a portion of which have simply chosen not to buy healthcare insurance. And, they want the diligent 85% to pay for it.
The really scary part is that Congress thinks that a Government run healthcare bill will put pricing pressure on a free-market Healthcare system. They need look no farther than Medicare and Medicaid to see that the Government run programs, that insure approximately 40 million on Medicare and another 50 million on Medicaid, have had no effect on the rising cost of healthcare. The word “clueless” comes to mind.
Do we need healthcare reform? Absolutely. Do I have the answer? Absolutely not. It will most likely involve tort reform, more latitude for general practitioners to provide general medical services without the interference of insurance companies, unrestricted fair market competition among healthcare providers eliminating regional boundaries and individual choice of healthcare provider, without penalizing or changing company-paid benefit programs.
As Ronald Regan so apply put it, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
11:48 am on November 9th, 2009 -
All really great points. The real problem is fairly simple as we see it. The Democrats are not trying to address health care reform in a rational way. In fact, no elements of rationality enter into their equation.
They merely want government in charge of all facets of our lives. They are pursuing this goal without respect to the damage it may cause to our economy, without concern for the warping of our constitutional rights, and without regard to what their ultimate agenda may cost.