Posts
Below is the e-mail sent to my federal representatives this morning.
My first concern with nationalized health care is that makes for a larger government and more government control, which I am absolutely against. America is not and will never be a socialist country. We the People control America and will not stand for it, no matter how slyly you try to push it on us.
My second issue is the proven inefficiencies within government. Look at any government agency from Social Security to the Dept of Health & Human services to Fannie Mac to the failed Postal Service. Government take over of such a large industry will only lead to failure.
My third issue is that I do not believe that this plan is good for our health care. There is a lot of research proving that health care quality goes down when a government takes over. Why do you think so many from other countries come to ours for quality health care? I think we should be able to purchase safe drugs from other countries. But, I don't like the idea of controlling how much a company can charge for their medications. It costs a lot in research and development to produce these drugs. Government restrictions, will only restrict the research and development that produces life saving medications.
My forth issue with this plan, is that I do not believe that it is fair to charge anyone higher taxes than everyone else. If you're going to preach equality, you should preach equality for ALL.
Finally, I do believe that health care is expensive and that something could be done with our system, so that insurance companies, health care providers and welfare recipients cannot as easily take advantage of they system. But government control is not the answer. The fact of the matter is, whatever system we have, there will be "loopholes" used to take advantage of it. We should fix the good (but not perfect) system we have, not just throw it away.
The American people must hold themselves accountable for their own actions. If you're going to choose to smoke, no one should be forced to cover the cost of curing your lung cancer. Some may say that this is heartless, but really it's just self preservation. If I have to pay to cure someone else today, how will I afford to cure myself or my loved one when I need to? I don't have any issue with those that choose to pay for health care for someone else. I have done it myself many times. But it was by choice, that's the difference between a free country and a socialist country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Below is the email response I received from Senator Ben Nelson concerning the above email. As you will see, he does not directly address any of my issues - basically he does what all politicians do: Use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
ReplyDeleteDear Kristy:
Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this critical issue.
As you know, one of the greatest economic concerns our nation faces - across the age spectrum - is access to affordable health care. Statistics show that approximately 47.3 million Americans lacked health coverage in 2006, or 16 percent of the U.S. population. Those who are insured continue to be hit by the spiraling costs of health care premiums, which have increased by about 87 percent since 2000.
The past few years have yielded a variety of proposals designed to tackle this growing problem, many focusing on the broader issue of universal health care and some attempting to address more specific issues within the system, such as prescription drug costs and pre-existing condition restrictions. I believe meaningful health care reform is within reach, and Congress must find a middle ground to improve care by lowering cost and expanding access.
Achieving cost containment and improving efficiency in our health care delivery system is the first order of business and a mission-critical component of reform. Congress took a step forward with the approval of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-5, which made a down payment on advancing health information technology and comparative effectiveness research, giving patients access to improved health records and better evidence about which medical treatments may best serve their needs.
Americans also face difficult and inconsistent health coverage decisions, which prevent the marketplace from delivering the kind of efficiencies and responsiveness consumers require. To remedy this, we must demand that insurers compete on service and empower individuals with transparent information so they can easily compare co-pays, networks, provider quality measures, and access to medical records in order to make informed decisions about the coverage they deserve.
Thank you again for contacting me. Congress needs the input of all Americans to solve such an important issue, and I believe we must come together as a nation and collectively confront this shared challenge.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator
Kristy,
ReplyDeleteThis is worse than a non-response. There are a number of points on which Sen. Nelson was misleading, either by using outdated information or by omission.
Regarding the number of Americans who are without medical insurance. Sen. Nelson quoted out of date statistics. There are more recent statistics available. One must question why more recent numbers have not been quoted.
Between 2006 and 2007, the number of insured Americans actually DECREASED by 1.2 million.
See this NPR story:
Census: Fewer Americans Lack Health Care Insurance.
Sen. Nelson failed to mention that one of the reasons for problems in health insurance affordability are all of the governmental restrictions placed on that very competition. In no state in the country can you buy health insurance from a company outside that state. And the states highly regulate the policies, which affects the costs also.
Attempts to change these laws have been unsuccessful to date. The reasons for opposition are flimsy. An excellent example of this is the May 13 vote on lifting the restriciton of out of state purchase in Maine. Links are not allowed here, nor is copy paste. If you Google Bangor Daily News and health insurance, it should come up.
Senator Nelson also quoted how a "down payment" was made on medical records technology in the Stimulus Bill. In addition to the many evils of that bill, the medical records technology was among its worst elements.
I have to hand type links in here, so I will reference to Ruin Your Health With Obama Stimulus Plan at Bloomberg.com
This article details how the Stimulus bill creates an entirely new bureaucracy through the medical records technology section referenced by Sen. Nelson. A National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will review medical treatments to determine whether they are cost effective and appropriate. That is just a taste of what that section of the bill includes.
I am not surprised by Sen. Nelson's response.
I appreciate your sharing it with all of us very much.
I invite you to join Grassroots in Nebraska, which you can find by visiting netcot dot ning dot com.
We are a group of Nebraskans who are working together by project to impact policy on the local, county, and state level. We are not a formal organization, nor do we intend to become one. Just free individuals working together on projects that help us restore Constitutionally limited government.
I plan on adding you to my personal blogroll and sharing a link to this post.
Form letter, I got the same one. I'm composing a reply.
ReplyDelete