Health Care Reform

Yes, we have the finest healthcare in the world but there is plenty of work to do to make it fair and affordable.

Start with Medicare for example:

  • Medicare is fixated on price instead of cost.  Don’t underestimate the damage caused by this insidious short sightedness.
  • Competition is not just discouraged it is outlawed!
  • The best and worst, the most efficient and the biggest wasters all get paid the same.

Pressing needs include:

  • Insurance reform
  • Tort reform
  • Universal Electronic Medical Record
  • Fair treatment for the working poor who are not eligible for Medicaid but cant afford private insurance.

Please consider our diagnosis and prescription for preserving the good in our system and fixing only that which is broken:

Patient Centered, Free Enterprise Health Care Reform

The video below illustrates some of the lunacy of our present healthcare system and has a little fun doing so.  What if air travel (that paragon of efficiency) worked like our health care system?  Hmmmmm…

In many ways our U.S. health care system is the best in the world despite its numerous flaws. In reforming it we must be careful to change only the flaws and leave what’s working well alone. This article is in two parts. Part one is “Diagnosis: Critical but treatable” and Part two is The Prescription: Patient Centered, Free Enterprise Health Care Reform. The parts may be read separately or together.

Part 1: Diagnosis Critical but Treatable
A discussion of the flaws in our current system that must be addressed in any reform.

Part 2: The Prescription: Patient Centered, Free Enterprise Health Care Reform This is a presentation of an approach to heath reform that introduces the principles of capitalism: choices, competition, aligned incentives, supply and demand into the health care economy providing health insurance equality for all Americans regardless of social or economic status. It is funded primarily by attacking waste, shifting resources from broken programs and improving quality within the system.

An unbiased analysis of the problems within our current health care system will confirm that they are largely the result of the influence that the federal government has exercised within the system.

The problems that need to be addressed are complex and large, and would only be further complicated and magnified by resorting to the failed doctrine of central planning. A partial list of these problems includes:

  • Nearly five decades of extraordinary inflation in the health care segment. This is not due to a failure of capitalism but is the result of a lack of capitalism in health care. Its beginning can be traced to the advent and explosive growth of the third-party payer system beginning with Blue Cross in the 1940s. This is not rocket science. When a third party picks up the tab, buyers and sellers do not function in their traditional free market roles. Government involvement through Medicare and Medicaid as well as various unfunded mandates and increased red tape and reporting requirements compounded the problem.
  • Tremendous waste built into the system, for example:
    • “Defensive medicine” tests, images, therapies and procedures not necessary or even helpful for diagnosis and treatment of a condition, but help to document physician “diligence” in the event of a law suit.
    • Duplicate tests, images and therapies ordered by various providers for the same patients. This occurs because the providers have no way to coordinate information and care.
    • Higher cost “first visits” each time a patient sees a new provider for the first time. This is to cover the cost of the initial patient physical history that is many times incorrect or incomplete.
    • Harmful treatments and therapies that are ordered due to lack of information which generate additional expense and suffering.
    • Care that is rendered solely because a third party is paying for it.
    • Lack of competitive pressures on providers to deliver efficient, cost effective care.
    • Government rules and regulations that require extra steps, red tape and waste of manpower and materiel.
    • Out of control regulatory processes that generate great expense for providers without corresponding benefit to patients.
  • The incentives in our present systems are misaligned and confused. They reward behavior on the part of providers, payers and patients that are counter to maintaining a high quality, cost effective health care system.
    • Providers are generally rewarded to sell more services and skimp on quality and service.
    • Insurers and other payers are incented to limit coverage and challenge claims. Some insurance companies stoop to automatically denying all claims the first time they are submitted and asking the patient to provide more information. They know that a significant percentage of these patients will be confused and docilely accept the denial and never resubmitted the claim.
    • Patients are rewarded by postponing care until it is critical and thus expensive.
    • Providers with low prices are chosen by payers and patients rather than efficient providers who are able to deliver an entire episode of care for the lowest “global” cost. Global cost includes all costs associated with an episode of care. For example, in the case of surgery, the surgeon’s fee is only a small part of the global cost, which considers all pre-operative exams, tests, images, treatments, prescriptions, etc as well as the cost of the hospital room and board and ancillary services, radiologist, anesthesiologist, etc., plus post-operative follow-up exams tests, images and treatments.
    • Studies have shown that that there is often an inverse correlation between global costs and the quality of the provider. In other words, the best surgeon gets the diagnosis and treatment right the first time and performs in a highly efficient manner. The global cost of the entire surgery is very competitive even though the surgeon’s fee may be higher than average.
  • Medicare and Medicaid programs that cover the poor and the elderly are highly inefficient government run programs. There is NO COMPETITION ALLOWED! These programs rely on price fixing instead of competition to control costs. Price fixing is not only a shallow and ineffective approach to cost management; but is also highly susceptible to political influences, often to the point of being “pork”.
  • The cost of administration for the government plans is high when one considers that administrative costs are largely shifted to providers and patients and thus are not fully reflected in the costs reported by the government.

    Government plans depend primarily on the simplistic strategy of setting the fees they will pay for services rendered in order to control costs. This strategy fails to recognize the differences in quality and efficiency between providers and gives no incentives or even opportunity for providers to compete. Yes, that is correct. They pay the same fee to all similar providers in an area, regardless of quality, experience, reputation or efficiency. In considering only fees, the true global costs are ignored.

    Many top quality and highly efficient providers refuse to take patients covered by these plans because of fee limitations and administrative costs. The result is lower quality care at a higher cost.

  • The working poor. This is perhaps the most unfair situation of all. This group generally receives very limited primary care and almost no preventative care. Primary care is generally limited to that which is received only after hours of waiting in a government or charity hospital emergency room. Generally, the care they receive is extremely inefficient and of spotty effectiveness.
  • These people are generally hard working, “contributing citizens” who are not able to afford their share of the cost of employer sponsored health plans but who earn too much to be eligible for government plans such as Medicaid.

    They are thrown into a nightmarish hodge podge of overlapping systems (with wide gaps) to obtain their care. This entire system is generally demeaning, inconvenient, and unreliable.

    Funding sources include various not-for-profit providers who provide services on a charity basis (sometimes only after trying and failing to collect full balances); as well as various private and public charities, and various government sponsored programs such as state and local government health care facilities, VA Hospitals and clinics, etc. The cost of this ineffective care is virtually incalculable but possibly the most expensive, least effective care per-capita being provided in the USA.

The Prescription?

The prescription for fixing our health care system is certainly not central planning, socialization or government run health care.  It is not throwing $trillions at a flawed system.  It is also not to dismantle all the great things about our current system that blesses Americans with the highest survival rates in the world for many serious diseases.

The malaise in our present system is not a failure of capitalism but a lack of it.  The solution is quite simple really.  Apply the principles of capitalism that have made our country the richest in the world to the health care economy.  Those principles were muddied with the advent of the third party payer system in the late 1940s and were trashed altogether with the advent of the government run system of Medicare in the 1960s.  in a nutshell: infuse capitalism and free enterprise into the system, cover all Americans, Align the incentives for all participants and restrict the role of government.

Here then, is our prescription for patient centered, free enterprise health care reform:

Basic Principles:

  • Private insurance for all Legal residents of the USA
  • Competition at every level
  • Individual choices of Insurer, benefits, providers
  • Limited role of government and employers
  • Tort reform and simplified, no-lawyer claims option
  • Citizen boards to oversee and adjudicate consumer disputes with insurance companies

Provisions:

  • There must be competition at every level of the system.
    • Insurers will compete to be the choice of individuals and families by offering better benefits, lower prices, better providers, better service, etc.
    • Providers will compete to be included in insurance networks on the basis of willingness to share risk, efficiency, quality, low total costs, customer service, etc.
    • Insurers will compete to attract the highest quality, most efficient providers on the basis of contractual provisions, payment terms, patient volume, claims environment, reputation, etc.
    • Employers will compete for employees on the basis of work environment, job security, benefits offered, contribution toward benefit cost above minimum, compensation, etc.
  • We must continue progress in medical science and in extending humanity’s lifespan and quality of life.  We must not discontinue or stifle research as suggested by current administration
  • We must make new discoveries easier and less expensive to bring to the public.
    • Regulators will be limited to judging the safety not the efficacy of new drugs and procedures.  Let the efficacy be judged by physicians and patients in the market place.
    • This will eliminate $billions in costs
  • There will be adequate, portable, affordable health insurance available to every legal resident of USA
    • No individual underwriting or health questions
    • No pre-existing condition exclusion.  Standardized limitations and exclusions for all policies.
    • Minimum benefit standard.  Insurers may increase but not decrease coverage.
  • Limit the role of government in health care to setting standards, funding infrastructure, and subsidizing the cost of coverage for low income families.
  • Ignore the trial lawyers who seem to control our state and national legislatures and reform the tort process for claims against health care providers.
    • Establish regional citizen arbitration panels to settle these disputes.
    • Panel members appointed by State Commissioner who is elected by the people to one four year term.  No re-election.
    • Panel members serve one two year term.  No reappointment.
    • Simple procedures.  Attorney representation optional
  • Establish under the state insurance commissioner, regional citizen boards to adjudicate consumer complaints against insurance companies for denial of claims, coverage or care.
    • Board members serve one two year term.  No reappointment.
    • Simple procedures.  Attorney representation optional
    • Denial of care disputes handled on an expedited basis and settled within five (5) working days.
  • Eliminate all government run health care programs including Medicare and Medicaid.  Replace these programs private insurance plans, providing each participant with the choice between several competing insurers. Shift funding from these government run plans to subsidize the individual’s purchase of private insurance.  Current government run programs are very inefficient.  They do not allow competition and focus on price fixing instead of total cost of care. (Price is only one component of total cost.  Utilization, quality and efficiency have a greater impact)  They pay all like providers the same price disregarding quality experience, efficiency, or ability to deliver high quality for the lowest total cost.
  • Health insurance will be funded through a combination of employer and employee contributions, government subsidies and shifting of costs from a multitude of less efficient health care systems now in effect.
    • Point of service cost sharing.  No health care expenses will be covered by insurance at 100%.  A series of point of service co-payments will be established according to income levels and ability to pay.  The principle is that there will always be an affordable cost to be borne by the individual using the health care system.  An individual or family’s total out of pocket expense will be capped appropriately.
    • There will be a minimum employer funding mandated as a percentage of payroll.  Employers may compete for employees by funding above the minimum.
    • Coverage for low income employees will be funded by employee contributions that are limited to a percentage of income as well as a flat dollar cap. The balance of premiums will be funded by employer contributions.  Employer contributions for low income employees in excess of those funded for other employees will be recovered by the employer through federal tax credits, thereby shifting the subsidy cost to the federal government.
    • Those who are currently “uninsured” do receive health care, albeit unreliable, humiliating, highly inefficient and ineffective (thus the most expensive health care in the U.S.).  This hodge podge is currently funded by a combination of state and federal funded programs such as Medicaid and CHIP and a variety of uncompensated care delivered in hospital emergency rooms, charity clinics and hospitals, government facilities maintained for the indigent, etc.  These scattered costs will be identified and re-channeled into the mainstream system to purchase private insurance for these people that will they will be treated exactly the same and have the same choices and privileges as others having insurance.
  • Each family must have a choice of insurers independent of the funding source (employer, etc.)
    • They may choose insurer based on providers included in network, or:
    • choose providers based on participation in desired insurer’s network.
  • Those who are employed will have insurance provided through their employer with multiple insurer, benefit and cost options
    • Employer will not “sponsor” plan in the sense of today’s system and will not have liability as a plan sponsor.
    • Employer’s role will be limited to:
      • Providing information to insurers and employees
      • Providing administration of eligibility, enrollment, premium payment, etc
      • Funding employer’s share of plan costs and collecting employee contributions and government tax credits.
  • Anyone who is not eligible for insurance through an employer will also have multiple insurer, benefit and cost options as an individual or family.
  • The federal government will establish an infrastructure to enable a highly efficient Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system.
    • There are many complex technical issues that must be addressed but the following requirements are a must for any EMR system:
      • The system must reside in “the cloud” and require only a computer and a browser for a provider or patient to access and or update the system.  It must not require any expensive proprietary software or hardware.
      • The record itself must be owned by the patient who will also have power to control access to the information.
    • The benefits of such a system will be enormous.  Credible sources estimate that as much as 40% of our nation’s health care bill could be saved if such a system were employed correctly. Some of the benefits to be derived:
      • Virtual elimination of duplicate tests and treatments
      • Elimination of costly first visits to a physician that pays the physician extra for having you fill out those “history and physical” forms that you probably never fill out the same way twice.
      • Improved medical decisions resulting from all physicians working with the same accurate, up-to-date information.
      • Empowers routine screening of records by software designed to compare the treatments and medications prescribed by all the various physicians and specialists who are treating a patient, spotting potential adverse interactions and contra-indications.  This will save huge amounts of care and countless lives.
      • Data mining may hold the highest potential value.  Taking information that now exists in inaccessible paper files and a multitude of incompatible digital files and capturing it in a powerful national data base could hold the key to:
        • Determining the most effective protocols, medications chemotherapies, etc. for specific illnesses and conditions,
        • Identifying the most efficient providers and methods,
        • Identifying correlations between various conditions that have not heretofore been linked,
        • Detecting unintended effects of various medications and treatments that could be either good or harmful.
        • Identifying trends in health and care
        • Diagnosing various conditions more quickly and accurately based on analysis of symptoms and test results
        • Potential cures for presumably incurable diseases
        • AND SO MUCH MORE!

Summary

You will notice that nowhere in this prescription do we rely on central planning or governmental control.  Indeed the role of government is strictly limited.  Neither do we leave private citizens at the mercy of the large insurance companies.  All citizens are made to be equal and treated as such.

A skilled analysis of this plan will determine that it will provide health insurance to all and will be budget positive, not budget neutral.  It will not increase the deficit.  It will more than pay for itself by dramatically reducing waste, improving quality and efficiency and by diverting funds from antiquated inefficient programs into an efficient, free enterprise system driven by the principles that have made this country the richest nation in the world for more than a century.

This prescription introduces health care providers to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise for the first time since WWII. Health insurers and health care providers will have to compete on a level playing field to attract informed consumers who have freedom of choice. A novel idea!

Above all, the incentives of this system are aligned.  All parties, patients, providers and insurers are rewarded for patient focused, rational, reasonable behavior.

Block Opposing Voices

by on September 2, 2009

in Health Care

Recorded on August 31, 2009 outside Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) town hall meeting in Skokie, IL.

Let’s not discuss issues. Let’s just block out opposing voices.

The 20th century’s great experiments with central planning have either abandoned the concept and injected large doses of capitalism into their economies, collapsed under the weight of their own inefficiency or maintained control of their oppressed citizens with strict totalitarian governments with reputations for brutality.  The evidence is there for all to see.  It is barely history, more like current events.

Why then, do those who now control our government turn to central planning to solve the admittedly serious problems within our health care system which represents 18% of our nation’s GDP?  An unbiased analysis of the root causes of the problems within our current health care system will confirm that they are largely caused by the influence that the government has exercised within the system.

The problems that need to be addressed are complex and large, and would only be further complicated and magnified by resorting to the failed doctrine of central planning.  A partial list of these problems includes:

  • Nearly five decades of extraordinary inflation in the health care segment.  This is not due to a failure of capitalism but is the result of a lack of capitalism in health care.  Its beginning can be traced to the advent and explosive growth of the third-party payer system beginning with Blue Cross in the 1940s.  This is not rocket science.  When a third party picks up the tab, buyers and sellers do not function in their traditional free market roles.  Government involvement through Medicare and Medicaid as well as various unfunded mandates and increased red tape and reporting requirements compounded the problem.
  • Tremendous waste built into the system, for example:
    • “Defensive medicine” tests, images, therapies and procedures not necessary or even helpful for diagnosis and treatment of a condition, but help to document physician “diligence” in the event of a law suit.
    • Duplicate tests, images and therapies ordered by various providers for the same patients.  This occurs because the providers have no way to coordinate information and care.
    • Higher cost “first visits” each time a patient sees a new provider for the first time.  This is to cover the cost of the initial patient physical history that is many times incorrect or incomplete.
    • Harmful treatments and therapies that are ordered due to lack of information which generate additional expense and suffering.
    • Care that is rendered solely because a third party is paying for it.
    • Lack of competitive pressures on providers to deliver efficient, cost effective care.
    • Government rules and regulations that require extra steps, red tape and waste of manpower and materiel.
    • Out of control regulatory processes that generate great expense for providers without corresponding benefit to patients.
  • The incentives in our present systems are misaligned and confused.  They reward behavior on the part of providers, payers and patients that are counter to maintaining a high quality, cost effective health care system.
    • Providers are generally rewarded to sell more services and skimp on quality and service.
    • Insurers and other payers are incented to limit coverage and challenge claims.  Some insurance companies stoop to automatically denying all claims the first time they are submitted and asking the patient to provide more information.  They know that a significant percentage of these patients will be confused and docilely accept the denial and never resubmitted the claim.
    • Patients are rewarded by postponing care until it is critical and thus expensive.
    • Providers with low prices are chosen by payers and patients rather than efficient providers who are able to deliver an entire episode of care for the lowest “global” cost.  Global cost includes all costs associated with an episode of care.  For example, in the case of surgery, the surgeon’s fee is only a small part of the global cost, which considers all pre-operative exams, tests, images, treatments, prescriptions, etc as well as the cost of the hospital room and board and ancillary services, radiologist, anesthesiologist, etc., plus post-operative follow-up exams tests, images and treatments.
    • Studies have shown that that there is often an inverse correlation between global costs and the quality of the provider.  In other words, the best surgeon gets the diagnosis and treatment right the first time and performs in a highly efficient manner. The global cost of the entire surgery is very competitive even though the surgeon’s fee may be higher than average.
  • Medicare and Medicaid programs that cover the poor and the elderly are highly inefficient government run programs.  There is NO COMPETITION ALLOWED! These programs rely on price fixing instead of competition to control costs.  Price fixing is not only a shallow and ineffective approach to cost management; but is also highly susceptible to political influences, often to the point of being “pork”.
  • The cost of administration for the government plans is high when one considers that administrative costs are largely shifted to providers and patients and thus are not fully reflected in the costs reported by the government.

    Government plans depend primarily on the simplistic strategy of setting the fees they will pay for services rendered in order to control costs.  This strategy fails to recognize the differences in quality and efficiency between providers and gives no incentives or even opportunity for providers to compete. Yes, that is correct. They pay the same fee to all similar providers in an area, regardless of quality, experience, reputation or efficiency.  In considering only fees, the true global costs are ignored.

    Many top quality and highly efficient providers refuse to take patients covered by these plans because of fee limitations and administrative costs.  The result is lower quality care at a higher cost.

  • The working poor.  This is perhaps the most unfair situation of all. This group generally receives very limited primary care and almost no preventative care.  Primary care is generally limited to that which is received only after hours of waiting in a government or charity hospital emergency room.  Generally, the care they receive is extremely inefficient and of spotty effectiveness.
  • These people are generally hard working, “contributing citizens” who are not able to afford their share of the cost of employer sponsored health plans but who earn too much to be eligible for government plans such as Medicaid.

    They are thrown into a nightmarish hodge podge of overlapping systems (with wide gaps) to obtain their care.  This entire system is generally demeaning, inconvenient, and unreliable.

    Funding sources include various not-for-profit providers who provide services on a charity basis (sometimes only after trying and failing to collect full balances); as well as various private and public charities, and various government sponsored programs such as state and local government health care facilities, VA Hospitals and clinics, etc.  The cost of this ineffective care is virtually incalculable but possibly the most expensive, least effective care per-capita being provided in the USA.

Coming soon: Prescription for health care reform.

www.JewishWorldReview.com Published this article entitled “What lies beneath” By Cal Thomas. It explores the deeper issues that divide the left and right concerning health care reform:

The debate — OK, the shouting match — we are having over “health-care reform” is about many things, including cost, who gets help and who does not and who, or what, gets to make that determination. Underlying it all is a larger question: Is human life something special? Is it to be valued more highly than, say, plants and pets? When someone is in a “persistent vegetative state” do we mean to say that person is equal in value to a carrot?

Are we now assigning worth to human life, or does it arrive with its own pre-determined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ, or disability?

The bottom line is not the bottom line. It is something far more profound. Our decisions regarding who will get help and who won’t are about more than bean-counting bureaucrats deciding if your drugs or operation will cost more than you are contributing to the U.S. Treasury.

The secular left claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by “natural selection” stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. Why spend lots of money to improve — or save — the life of someone who evolved from slime and has no special significance other than the “accident” of becoming human? Policies flow from such a philosophy, though the average secularist probably wouldn’t put it in such stark terms. Stark, or not, isn’t this the inevitable progression of seeing humanity as maybe complex, but nothing special?

The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal G-d, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that G-d made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life’s value and our approach to affirming it until natural death.

It is between these two distinctly different worldview goalposts that the battle is taking place. Few from the “endowed rights” side are saying that a 100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor should be given extraordinary and expensive care to keep the heart pumping, even after brain waves have gone flat. But there is a big difference between “letting go” and “snuffing out.” The unnatural progression for many on the secular left is to see such a person as a “burden.” In an age when we think we should be free of burdens — a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse — getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible. But by doing so, we assume an even greater burden: the role of G-d in deciding who gets to live and who must die. Anyone who has seen the film “Bruce Almighty” senses how difficult it is to play G-d.

We are now witnessing some of the consequences of attempting to ban people with a G-d perspective from the public square. If there are no rules and no one to whom one might appeal when those rules are violated, we are on our own to set whatever rules we wish and to change them in a moment in response to opinion polls. Any appeals to a higher authority stop at the Supreme Court.

The explosive town hall meetings are indications that Americans are trusting government less and less. So where should we go? The answer is in your wallet or purse. It’s on the money. Right now it is little more than a slogan, but what if it became true: in G-d We Trust.

Health care is NOT just a economic  issue, it is a moral issue. The chasm that divides us is as deep as it gets. Let there be no “Roe Vs Wade” type edict that prevents any US citizen from pursuing life, liberty and happiness.  All human beings deserve the “right to choose” whether or not to receive treatment.  The government proposes to approach this as an economic decision.  It is so much more!  There must be no government involvement in that important choice.

Read the article here:
What lies beneath


You can track the healthcare bill here: H.R.3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

More Health care Coverage on Liberty’s Army

Contact Your U.S. Representative

Contact Your U.S. Senators

In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

We agree that anyone who works for a living should be able to afford health care. There are about 8,000,000 working poor who are not eligible for formal government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, but cannot afford the huge expense that decent health insurance has become. We are concerned about these folks. That number is a far cry from the 47,000,000 number that has been used to scare and manipulate us, however.

While we want health care, we DON’T want:

  • Lies and half truths used to manipulate us into accepting stupid government programs that do more harm than good.
  • ANYONE connected in ANYWAY with ANY government deciding who is worth treating and who is not.
  • The federal government to play any role whatsoever in the health care system other than funding the infrastructure that is necessary to establish Electronic Medical Records that will reduce waste and duplications as well as improve the quality of health care decisions and advance the effectiveness of treatment protocols through use of data mining.
  • The Electronic Medical Record to be owned by anyone except the patient who will be able to control access to the information contained in it.
  • The Electronic Medical Record to be a huge expense for health care providers.  It should reside in “the cloud” and should require no proprietary software be installed on a provider’s system in order to access it.  A reasonable computer with a quality browser should be enough if the infrastructure is fully and properly developed.
  • The government to negotiate or fix prices in anyway.  Medicare has proven that government price fixing does NOTHING to reduce costs.  Costs will only be reduced when the incentives for the providers, patients, payers, and regulators are all aligned to reward elimination of waste, increased quality of care and outcomes, cost effectiveness and efficiency of care.
  • Increased bureaucracy and red tape and complicated rules and regulations.  We want the giving and receiving of and payment for care to be simple and elegant.
  • A slowing of Medical research and the resulting advances in medical science that have fueled a doubling of life expectancy in the past 150 years.
  • The aged or infirm to be written off as non-productive citizens and thus not worthy of continued investment in treatment.
  • To be forced to choose a particular provider or insurer.
  • To be forced to receive or to forgo a particular treatment or therapy.
  • Any further inhibition of competition in the health care field.  We want free competition with a level playing field between insurers and providers solidly based on open and reliable information regarding costs, outcomes and quality and efficiency markers being available to consumers.
  • Individuals excluded from coverage for any reason unless they are trying to enroll in a plan after having refused it when originally eligible. Coverage should be open to all regardless of health condition.
  • Bureaucrats, either government or private, second guessing our physicians on their recommended treatments. The physicians should only be accountable to their patients and peer groups.
  • Bureaucrats, either government or private judging whether or not an illness is brought on by a person’s behavior or lifestyle and assessing penalties of any kind based on those judgments.
  • The government throwing our money at our health care system until its incentives are properly aligned and waste has been virtually eliminated.  Such behavior will just compound our current problems.
  • To pay for care for those who are here illegally and are not otherwise paying their own way.
  • Huge deficits.  We especially don’t want huge deficits that are attributed to paying for any of the “don’t wants” listed above.

Yes, we do want affordable health care.  We realize however that the reason health care is not affordable for all presently is past and present government interference.  We are not idiots.  We do not buy the B.S. that you have been pedaling in trying to sell your socialized agenda for health care.  We don’t appreciate the street thug tactics and name calling and accusations that have been employed against those of us who do not agree with your horrific plan.  “We the people” still own this country and its government. The government does not own it or us.  We will cooperate with any program that truly benefits the people but we will not be bullied.  We don’t have to tolerate being bullied, we are Americans!


You can track the healthcare bill here: H.R.3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

More Health care Coverage on Liberty’s Army

Contact Your U.S. Representative

Contact Your U.S. Senators

In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell