Conservative Resistance to Health Care Reform is NOT the Same as Not Needing to Reform Health Care

The President's ongoing program to create a massive and very expensive modification of United States health care availability is generating passionate debate.

Many of the proponents of SR 3200 (the current USNHC bill in the US House of Representatives) that have been facing angry constituency are declaring that these town-hall meeting "disruptors" and "protesters" to be "un-American" and hateful people who want to deny health care to the less fortunate and prosperous segments of our society.

Uh... no. Nearly all of the people against this reform bill that I've talked to, or whose blogs I have read are nearly united in acknowledging that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in big, big trouble. Most of those of the baby boomers and "gen x-rs" believe that most of the social government programs will have gone bust long before we actually are allowed to begin receiving benefits.

However, many of us have come up with ways to make sure that both our retirements and our golden-year health-care needs are funded. Privately. So that we do not need to depend on Uncle Sam.

So here's the problem. Those of us that already have health-care are already paying a LOT for it. We are very concerned about SR 3200 because we see that the only way to cover the so-called "47 million" who are not insured is for those of us that are already paying to either pay more, or be taxed more.

Here's some of our concerns:

1. If SR3200 were to be adopted, right now, with the public-funded option the GAO has estimated that this program would cost approximately 1.2 trillion dollars. President Obama has said that this amount could be reduced by eliminating fraud and waste. Yet both Medicare and Medicaid are being fraudulently abused all the time and the federal government hasn't even come to grips with that problem. USNHC would be nearly one order of magnitude bigger.
2. As previously stated, the U.S. government can't control Medicare and Medicaid, but they think they can control USNHC? Why would we believe that? Show me a government program that actually does not exceed it's budget and I'll show you a government program that spends less than $50 million per year. USNHC will spend nearly 1.2 trillion.
3. No nation on earth has ever tried to provide a public option, or more dramatically, "single-payer" to a population as large as the United States. Further, no nation currently on single-payer (eg: The United Kingdom and Canada) has been able to control spiralling costs. Both the UK and Canada are now in the "rationing" stage of their nationalized health care programs because they have fewer workers paying into the system in ratio to the older retirees taking out of the system. France is approaching a 1-1 ration between worker/retiree and their system is going bankrupt.
   
4. Instead of the Insurance company being "between" me and my doctor, a public option is perceived to put the federal government between me and my doctor. For the record, if I have to have a choice between who is going to deny me, I'd rather fight Blue Cross Blue Shield or Aetna than Uncle Sam.

As I've previously opined, I will not support SR3200 or any other incarnation of USNHC until the following options are also included:

1. Tort reform in medical lawsuits.
2. Elimination of class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.
3. Penalties for frivolous lawsuits.
4. Reduction in the mega-million fines and penalties being awarded to victims.
5. The establishment of one or more national co-ops instead of a public option for those who aren't able to get insurance through their employer at a reasonable price.
6. Qualification for public-option only open to those who are currently not employed but who can prove U.S. citizenship. Enrollment in public-option is only valid during period where enrolled is actively seeking employment and or the enrolled has been adjudicated 100% disabled. Able-bodied U.S. citizens that refuse to work would NOT qualify for this program.

If these provisions were added to the already existing SR3200, I would grudgingly support the legislation because I believe that items 1-4 would dramatically reduce the cost of health care by reducing the premiums being paid by providers and pharmaceutical companies for malpractice and errors and omissions insurance.

Otherwise, count me out. I'll just continue to plan on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security collapsing and financing my own solutions.