Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to discuss the implementation and affordability of the new Affordable Care Act, or Obama Care. During the opening statements by both parties the lines were drawn early. The opening statements by the Republicans attacked the affordability of the expansion of Medicare while those of the Democrats touted the benefits already in place and the humanity of the bill. Perhaps Stephen Hawking is right; it sure seemed that the coming conversation would take us back over a year ago. This trip is necessary though.
During his opening remarks, Rep. Waxman (D-CA), mentioned the benefits that are already in place as a result of the ACA. While the inclusion of those with pre-existing conditions, for example, is certainly effective at pulling heart-strings, the bragging didn’t include the context of deferring the costs. The mandates that will pay for these shared benefits don’t come into place until after the next Presidential election. Of course it is nice to get something for nothing, again we hear the classic bait used against the population to garner support for federal control of various goods and services. As a second point of support, Rep. Waxman celebrated the flexibility granted to the exchanges the States are supposed to use. It should come as no surprise that Rep. Waxman was successful at finding something to justify the law, he was the committee chairman when it was drafted. Shouldn’t it bother us that the States are forced to adhere to any rules constricting its flexibility in providing Medicare? Shouldn’t they be free to explore different ways of running the program based on the needs of their individual citizens? Surely it is obvious that running almost any type of social program in New York will be different from in Montana. Perhaps this is why we established a union of States and not a single source of government for the country. Besides the fact that we have allowed the Federal Government to build programs which force the population to solve societal issues through Federal programs alone; now the States are told how to run the program as well. It seems like the authors should have been more honest and taken the control directly instead of hiding behind a law forcing others to do as they wish. To be fair, the public option was going to admit the true intention of those who wrote the bill. However, it should be noted the public option couldn’t pass through congress. Once again, they got what they wanted without having to admit their true intentions. Instead of forming a Federal program, they designed a system of rules to transfer power of the current health care system to the Federal level. About the only good thing I can say about Rep. Waxman in this context is that he shouldn’t be blamed for writing the bill. As one who watched the vast majority of committee meetings and floor discussions, Congress really didn’t write the bill anyway. The amount of agreements between the Executive Branch and private industries that took place in order to get support were well documented. For instance, shouldn’t we wonder why the pharmaceutical industry paid for the commercials herding the blind towards support? If this was truly about beating up health insurance companies and drug companies, why were they paying for the propaganda for a bill they shouldn’t like?
Part of the problem of shifting the decision-making power but not the responsibility is fiscal. According to the Governors, the States will have to raise their taxes in response because they can not afford to add to their responsibilities without either cutting spending on education or gaining new revenue. What a scam! Washington gains the right to tell the States what to do and how to do it, but the bad news about the true costs will come from our Governors instead of from those who wrote the bill! This shifted blame can easily be seen as a way of encouraging even more financial dependency upon the Federal Government. As Frank Pallone (D-NJ) admitted, while the Democrats were in power recently, they solved State budget issues with Federal funding. This is incredible! Our Federal Government is paying our State’s bills while running a deficit. Isn’t that like a wife paying her husbands bills with her credit card so he can say they were paid? This reliance only serves to contribute to the financial irresponsibility in Washington at a time when we are facing debt levels that could bring our country to its knees. While Democrats brag about the support of social programs such as Medicare during down economies our media is typically useless in asking if our economy is weakened by the mere existence of these programs. Remember that the same system that permits a monetary policy of constant inflation also permits the illusion of success for the various schemes Washington has sold us.
Without the generational cost shifting inherent in running our country on a credit card we couldn’t have the military empire we currently support. Politicians wouldn’t be able to claim the Social Security funds are safe either. They won’t deny, if they are pinned down hard enough, that the cash isn’t there. It is filled with promissory notes of the United States Treasury. I.O.U.’s are what we get for our social security taxes. Democrats continue to challenge the Republican Governor’s opposition to the ACA with pointed questions about what would they do to replace the bill, as if the only choice is a federally run program telling us all what to do. Democrats wrote a bill offering unrealistic benefits for the people without paying for it and use the unpaid-for early benefits as leverage over anyone challenging the long-term implementation of the program. While this sounds good to the people and will make it more difficult to address those issues before they are at hand, it relies on a bait and switch type of governing that I can’t support.
Since I obviously think the ACA is a bad idea, I figured I had better show that it isn't the only way of providing health care to the nation. Look for Health Care Part 2 for an alternate solution.
Lastly, I must address a comment made by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) towards her Governor. She attacked his budget plan for its potential loss of federal funding towards Medicare. I’m not saying that Wisconsin is doing something right or wrong but doesn’t this point out the failure of a system that only supports States which defers authority and control to a federal program? The idea that our States are no longer allowed to explore democratic ideas on their own is one that angers me. Our union is stronger when we explore every idea concerning government. We also protect our union by exploring new ways of governing on the smaller scale of the States rather than passing one-size-fits-all bills on the federal level. We are not America; we are the United States of America. Has everyone forgotten the point in making a union? Limiting the legislative imagination and authority to Washington has not served us well yet, why should we not question this new system instead of granting them more and more power over our lives and commerce? It wasn't always this way but I'll bet our public schools don't teach that much. Certainly it is missing from the vast majority of main stream media conversations, otherwise known as the adult education system
No comments:
Post a Comment