• Assume that Medicare was a private
company that you had held stock in since 1966, and then in 2009 the CEO of
that company came to you and said, "We just found $500 billion dollars of
waste and inefficiencies in the company. "Wouldn't you wonder why it took
them 43 years to find this waste? And then, if this same CEO said, "We're
going to find ways to get rid of the waste and inefficiency and take the
money we saved from your company and, using the same people who developed
and ran your company, we're going to start another company that you have no
stock in." Wouldn't you fire the CEO and then sell all of your stock in
Medicare knowing that the value and quality was going to drop?
• If the health care reform
legislation isn't a takeover of our health care system by the government,
then why does the basic legislation need to be so big (over 2,000 pages with
almost 2,000 direct references to action by government institutions)? The
constitution is only 12 pages long and it has done pretty good for over 200
years.
• What historical reassurance do we
have that the government can effectively run 1/6 of our economy? What
government organization has ever shown to be more efficient than free
enterprise when running anything of any size? The government couldn't even
estimate the demand within a factor of 10 on a relatively small program like
"cash for clunkers," how can they hope to rum something 100 times bigger?
• One of the problems with health
care today is that the buyer is disconnected from the costs of health care;
the buyer is separated from the seller. The buyer only cares about the
deductible or the co-pay rather than whether the MRI costs $100 or a $1,000.
Often the full cost of the health insurance premium is hidden because our
employer pays all or a portion of it. We may have some small choice in the
type of plan we buy, but not a choice among insurers. Is there anything in
any of the tenets of the current health care reform legislation that puts
the buyer closer to the seller so that they’re motivated to spend their
money wisely?
• How can we keep printing money to
spend on stimulus bills and bailouts and then propose to spend almost a
trillion dollars on health care reform and then say it's good for us and
good for the economy? Won’t inflation catch up with us? How can we burden
our kids and grandkids with this debt?
• Why haven't we done something to
keep the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals from
skyrocketing? Isn't there a huge cost to the health care system when the
doctors feel they must order additional tests to protect themselves in case
they are sued for millions of dollars? Is that seemingly simple fix in any
version of the pending health care reform legislation?
• There have been times in the
recent past when health care costs did not rise faster than inflation, 1984
to 1987 and 1993 to 1999, has any one looked at these two periods of time
and determined why that happened? It might offer some answers that could be
useful as we search for solutions today.
• If Members of Congress have to be
"bribed" with your tax dollars to vote for a piece of legislation, doesn’t
that speak volumes about the legislation itself, and about the Members of
Congress that will accept a "bribe" in exchange for their vote?
• When the important process of
combining the Senate and the House bills, called assigning the respective
bills to a conference committee (normally made up of Members from both
parties from both the House and Senate), is ignored and the conference
process is done by just a few select members of one party in late night
meetings at the White House, and this small group makes special deals that
go far outside the boundaries of either bill, doesn't that discredit the
preceding legislative work and in fact make a mockery of the whole
legislative process as outlined in the Constitution? Is this approach even
more absurd when it is used on legislation that will likely have a bigger
impact on taxes and government control than any bill in the history of the
United States?