Earlier this week I found this in my e-mail box. I’ll let the guy speak his piece but reserve the right of criticism.
Last weekend, the House of Representatives voted on comprehensive health care reform legislation. I believe that many of the measures included in this bill can play a part in improving our health care system – expanding coverage to the uninsured, increasing access in rural areas, and reducing health care costs are all priorities. However, ultimately I was unable to support the bill because I do not believe that H.R. 3962 offered a fiscally sustainable approach to reforming our ailing health care system. I wanted to share with you an op-ed I wrote that appeared in the Easton Star-Democrat that discusses the health care reform vote in more depth.
I am committed to passing health care reform legislation that cuts costs and insures more people, but I do not believe we can accomplish this in spite of our nation’s long term economic health. I did not believe that the bill that passed the House met this standard so I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress in hopes that a better bill can be developed as this process continues to move forward.
Fair enough. But in his op-ed Frank also notes:
What has struck me the most, however, wasn’t the anger and unruliness that grabbed so many headlines during August, but rather the number of people I would encounter who believed that I should commit to voting one way or the other before even knowing what would be included or excluded from the legislation. This was perhaps the only aspect of the health care debate that was truly bipartisan; I heard from many Republicans who demanded that I oppose any health care reform package, regardless of its contents, while some Democrats have told me I had a duty to unquestioningly support the bill simply because it was a priority for my party’s leadership.
To me, it’s not a question of party loyalty as it is determining the proper role of government. It’s my belief that government has a very limited role in health care, particularly when it comes to the doctor-patient relationship. It’s true that health insurance needs some sort of reform but the market should be able to take care of it – for example, decoupling health insurance and employment would solve the problem of needing to keep a job to maintain health insurance.
Where goernment can help is to roll back the regulations and mandates which increase the price of insurance by making insurers cover a myriad of conditions which might not necessarily apply. To me, insurance need not be mandatory but it’s not a bad idea to have it.
And given the $1 billion price that Frank Kratovil’s vote was purchased with for the cap-and-tax legislation, it’s certain that the negotiations have begun for determining how many pieces of silver he’ll sell out for this time. Of course, with 40 Democrats to spare Nancy Pelosi might give him another exemption from toeing the party line. He’ll still get the huge union and special interest donations to his campaign coffers regardless of how he votes, anyway – these folks aren’t stupid and know some Democrats will be cut down in the midterm elections next year. So, if Frank wins he may not have quite so much wiggle room in his next term and someone will be there to remind him which side his bread is buttered on.
Bottom line: Frank Kratovil took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but I can’t find anywhere in the document where it says health care is a right. Voting no on this go-round is good, but showing leadership against this intrusion into our private lives – not just calling on Congress to slow down consideration – would be even better.
So you think health care is a privelege? Shame on you.
Regarding the Constitution you write, “. . . I can’t find anywhere in the document where it says health care is a right.”
How about that whole “promote the general welfare” clause?
Health care should be neither a privilege or a right in the eyes of government. It should be provided in a manner of free will, as people give of themselves to provide it and expect compensation for same, in most cases.
As for the “general welfare” clause, James Madison wrote, and I tend to agree:
As a nation we have allowed those who would promise a minimum standard for the masses to give them exactly the minimum, no more and no less. But those chains of restraint also prevent them from achieving their full potential.
Do you honestly believe that, if government were not involved in health care, people would be allowed to suffer if they had a legitimate need and asked for help? I think that because the government is so heavily involved but does things in practically the least cost-effective way that the poor actually suffer worse than they did before.
As another anonymous wit has said, “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.” I’m not sure if the expense is greater in monrtary terms or with regard to our liberty.