The Democrats' health care legislation, as is or in very similar form, cannot be passed. Every choice point they encounter from this stage on leads to an internal contradiction or a dead end. To use a mathematical metaphor, their situation is overdetermined: there are too many conflicting restrictions; there is no solution to their dilemma. (To use a liberal metaphor: It's a slam dunk!)

Democratic proponents of health care reform have the following major goals:

(1) Create a federal public health insurance option to "compete with" private insurers, or

(2) Set up state cooperatives to "compete with" private insurers on a state-by-state basis;

(3) Prevent discrimination by insurance companies based on preexisting condition-i.e., forbid insurance companies from "providing insurance";

(4) Limit the ratio of high-to-low insurance premiums by age group.

Whether pursuing any of these goals is the government's business-and it isn't-Democrats need to enact some combination of these proposals in order to fulfill their aim of turning us into Canada; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this will cost about $1 trillion.

Democrats have proposed numerous bad ideas for paying for their legislation, all of which lead to intractable circumstances that they cannot tolerate politically with the general electorate, even if they were able to figure out a way to cobble together, rush through, or force the votes in Congress to pass them, including:

(1) Increase the deficit: This would violate Obama's promise that health care reform will be "dime"-neutral.

(2) Make taxpayers subsidize the public option: This would keep the government plan from having to cut costs or be efficient to attract and retain customers, as any private insurance company must. It would therefore eventually force those who are satisfied with their current plans to pay higher premiums or get less for their money.

(3) Cut $500 billion in Medicare: This would upset seniors, and anyone who plans to be a senior at some point in his life, who fear rationing of care.

(4) Tax high-cost plans at a 40% rate: This would anger emergency workers and union members, and huge numbers of people who will hit the non-insurance-adjusted premium threshold for this level of taxation in the next 10 years.

(5) Impose fees on insurance and pharmaceutical companies: These costs would simply be passed on to doctors, who would in turn dump them on to patients.

(6) Cap deductions for health savings accounts: This would increase out-of-pocket medical expenses.

(7) Force everyone to buy government-approved health insurance by charging a penalty for not having coverage: If the penalty were low, in order to avoid making it burdensome, then people would wait to get coverage until they became sick, then drop coverage after they recovered, which means the penalty would be useless. If the penalty were high, in order to make it effective, then the public would be infuriated over the imposition of a costly penalty for not buying something that should be optional.

(8) Cover fewer uninsured people: This would involve turning the nation's health care system upside down while failing to fulfill the basic aim of the plan.

In case Democrats are interested, there are provisions to which they could agree, all previously proposed in legislation by House Republicans, which would actually pay for the proposed plan. These steps should be taken anyway, and should be pursued instead of the Democrats' aims, but just for the record, they include:

(1) Medical liability tort reform: This would reduce settlement amounts and lower doctors' malpractice insurance premiums.

(2) Tax deductions for health insurance premiums, medical expenses, and prescriptions: This would allow people to decide how to allocate their earnings toward medical expenses, which they can do more efficiently than Kathleen "Jolly Roger" Sebelius.

(3) Vouchers for opting out of Medicare: This would allow people to decide how to spend their money on medical care in old age.

(4) Interstate provision of private insurance: This would allow for greater competition and cost-cutting.

Despite conservatives' nail-biting uncertainty over their ability to defeat HR 3200, they have one advantage: the truth. All the arguments conservatives have advanced against liberals' bad ideas are informed by it, whereas liberals must disguise it, distort it, downplay it, or lie about it to persuade anyone that their impossible legislative feat and fevered social engineering fantasy can be achieved. There are plenty of voters and legislators who are content to ignore the truth and stumble down dead ends, but enough may turn out to be smart and honest enough to see through these efforts and find their way out of the labyrinth.

By: Scott Spiegel
http://www.scottspiegel.com

If you are very well-informed about the health care issues facing America right now, feel free to skip this article. There's probably very little I can add to your understanding.

However, if you find yourself saying things like: "I don't understand how someone can oppose universal health care." or "How can someone say health care is not an obvious human right?" or "Obama cares so much for all of us. These radicals are just opposing it because it's his plan." or any of a few dozen variations, this guide very well might be for you.

Many have said, semi-incorrectly, that the proposed plan will not allow one to use private insurance. The fact of the matter is, yes it will...

But..........

Picture this:

Say there were a small neighborhood with three pizza shops that have been competing with one another for about two decades. Everyone in town has their favorite, and all the owners are doing quite well for themselves.

The pizza is not cheap, however, at $2.00 a slice. So, sadly, the less fortunate kids in town view pizza as a rare treat, and even the middle class folk don't want to buy too much, because of that burning feeling in the pocket.

... But it sure is tasty ...

Now, after much protestation in the community that the pizza is too expensive for many, the government decides to subsidize a new pizza shop, and pizza is only one nickel a slice. The pizza is definitely inferior to all three other shops, but there isn't a person in the neighborhood who can't have pizza whenever they choose.

The other three pizza shops start going crazy. "The government is trying to shut us down," they yell.

The government smugly replies, "We aren't shutting anyone down. Everyone, without exception, will still retain the option to go to the other places as often as they want."

But we're not naive.

We know what happens next.

Tons upon tons of people ditch the other three shops for the sake of the much cheaper alternative.

For a little while the other three hang on, cutting costs here and there, firing a few employees, charging even more in the hopes that they will gain some extra profit... but the end result is inevitable. They cannot compete with the government.

All the talk of allowing people to buy whatever pizza they choose is irrelevant if the other places have to close down.

*You see, when you look past all the political jargon (i.e. blah blah) you realize in the upcoming changes the end of private medicine as we know it.*

So what happens next?

After all thee private pizza shops are no longer around, the very mediocre government subsidized option is the only one left standing.

And the lines are out the door. After all, who can resist pizza at such an amazing price?

But there are thousands of people in this town, and they all love pizza. Now, some of them used to buy only one slice, but now buy two. Some used to cook for parties, but now order a dozen pizza pies. Some used to try and estimate exactly how much pizza they needed, but now they gladly overestimate with no fear whatsoever.

(Picture people who now go to the doctor much more often. People who go every time they have the smallest cough. Millions of previously uninsured people who never used to go who now go freely. And so on.)

In order to deal with the influx of customers to the nickel shop, several new decisions need to be made.

Should we hire new workers? Should we rush them through the training so we can get them into the shop ASAP?

Should we seek cheaper ingredients to deal with the increase in cost with the influx of orders?

Perhaps we might need to create a system where people need to order their pizza several weeks in advance? Or we need to prioritze some people over others, saying some people should not receive as many pizzas as others?

And let's not forget that "government subsidized" is just a code-word for "sponsored by you the tax payer". So in order to pay for this heavily subsidized pizza we have two (bad) choices:

a. borrow, and send the government further into debt (bad), or

b. raise taxes (bad)

And thus we complete the package of why we fear the proposed reforms.

We fear overworked doctors. We fear the potential need to hire more doctors quickly, with worse training, to deal with increased need from more patients.

We fear being rushed through the system ultra-quickly in order to deal with the surplus of new patients, resulting in inferior care.

We fear giant waiting lists preventing us from getting essential care in a timely fashion. (Think Canada and England, where patients have died waiting for treatment.)

We fear the reorganization of priorities. If the cost needs to be reduced, someone needs to have their services reduced. In the current situation, it looks like our wonderful American government has chosen the elderly as the victim.

We fear the country going into further debt, and we fear the potential of out-of-control taxes that seem to be the inevitable result of universal health care.

We fear the Robin Hood style government that thinks all can be sponsored involuntarily by the wealthy. We fear that if the wealthy are taxed severely, they will fire tons of employees which would further wound the economy, or they might pick up and move to a country which allows them to retain their profits, crippling the economy.

We fear a non-talented, non-thorough government making hasty decisions which could destroy everything we know and love about our country. The Constitution of the United States of America is much shorter than this proposed health care bill, but it took longer to write and was written by more talented, more intelligent people. And that is why it's basically eternal and has kept this country going strong for so long.

The difference between someone like me and the people of the current administration is foresight and deliberation. We all want change. The current health care situation is ridiculous. But change is NOT inherently positive.

If intelligent, well-meaning people set forth to better our system, slowly and carefully, good things are bound to come.

But rush into something like this, and we might all soon be eating burnt, nasty pizza...

By: David Jaffe
http://rabbijaffe.today.com

President Obama recently said, "I'm not the first president to take up health care but I am determined to be the last". It is fairly certain that this congress will pass something called health care reform. It is even more certain that it will not look anything like what the president wants. He will be able to claim a political victory, but the socialist engineers in government will not allow this to be the end of the health care debate. Though this sound bite qualifies as comely rhetoric, President Obama is wrong once again.

President Obama overcame his inexperience to win his election last November, but his inexperience has caught up to him. He made the mistake of thinking that his "rock star" persona would translate into political power. There can be no doubt that the more experienced politicians that are surrounding him tried to slow him down as he began to add trillions to the national debt, began the government take over of the auto makers, and effected the destruction of millions of jobs in the name of environmentalism. He did not listen to his older and wiser advisors, and it is his major passion that will suffer because of his miscalculations.

There are two realities that the inexperienced Obama did not count on. First, it takes more than just getting elected to advance an agenda. The president did not consider the fact that the new voters that he was able to woo to the voting booth in November are not going to fight the long battles that are necessary to win policy in this constitutional republic. The new voters responsible for his electoral victory were not even aware that policy victories would require an immense amount of work after the election was over. More importantly when they voted for Obama they were expecting that he was going to do all the work for them. They were the kind of people who believe that government can solve every problem.

Secondly, because of his lack of experience in an executive position he was not aware that he held a finite amount of political capital. Because he did not heed the advice of his handlers, the president proceeded to spend his political capital like the average lottery winner spends his newfound wealth (the winners of large jackpots in the lottery are generally worse off financially within five years after winning than they were before they won the lottery). Now he has nothing left to purchase the health care plan that he so desperately wants.

The Democrats in congress will try to save face for their president. There is little doubt that they will pass something called health care reform, but it will look very little like the socialist plan the president wanted. Therefore, he has taken up health care like others before him, but he will not be the last to carry this mantle. The socialists will not be satisfied until the government has complete control of your health. The president produced a great sound bite, but it is only half right. For those who see socialism as the failed system that it is this battle will never end.

By: Randal A. Pope
Randal A. Pope is the founder of Natural Healing Herb, a distributor of quality herbal supplements for you and your family. You can find information about what herbs to use for your health. We are partnered with Nature's Sunshine®, which has been manufacturing quality herbs for your health for more than 30 years. Find us at http://www.naturalhealingherb.com

These are in addition to the general problems I have with socialized medicine. Here are some tidbits from my reading of the bill:

Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

That's right, if you choose not to take the government option and don't have other insurance you will be taxed at a rate of 2.5% above other Americans who have insurance. So much for your right to choice.

Sec. 412. Responsibilities of non-electing employers.

So, let's say your employer cannot afford insurance for you. It's a small business and insurance is expensive. No problem, they just get nailed with an 8% excise tax. Say goodbye to small businesses.

Sec. 441. Surcharge on high income individuals.

This section is yet another assault on capitalism. if you make more than $350K it will increase your taxes by 1%, 1.5% if more than $500K, and a whopping 5.4% if you make over $1M per year.

So if you are a small business owner who does not provide insurance to employees, does not carry his/her own policy, and makes over $1M per year you are looking at an increase of nearly 15% in taxes related to you and your business.

Section 102. Protecting The Choice to Keep Current Coverage

This section involves the government forcing insurance companies to keep the same premium rates for plans issued prior to the bill being passed for those previously enrolled in the plans. In other words: when the costs for insurance companies goes up with this plan and insurance is fighting an unfair battle against a government run program they will not be allowed to increase rates. Premiums for plans started before the start of the new health care bill cannot be increased, even if they cost the insurance company more. Sure, if they raise the price of all other similar plans (before or after the bill) then they can raise the premiums of the prior plans. So,in the current environment Blue Cross can raise premiums on a small group of plans/conditions that are costing more to counter act rising costs and isolate the rest of it's customers from a rate increase. In the new environment they are required to raise premiums on everyone.
However, as much as I would like it to be in there, there is nothing about euthanasia only this passage:

An explanation by a practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

Now, in this passage it sounds like you are forced to talk to someone about "end of life" issues. Personally, I'd rather it be a talk with my family and definitely not required. Either way, there is nothing in there stating anything about putting old/sick people down.

Granted, under this bill there will eventually be some sort of rationing of health care and that may end up being euthanasia since we all know they're not going to waste precious resources on the old and sick.

By: Michael Crow
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/6 ... _crow.html