Will Congress Wreck Health Care?

LJWorld.com weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Posted by Reasonmclucus October 19, 2009 at 12:58 a.m.

The most important rule in health care is "first do no harm". Unfortunately Congressional Democrats seem totally oblivious to this rule.

Many Democrats are so egotistical that they think anything they do will be an improvement. They seem incapable of understanding that changes can make a situation worse instead of better just like giving a patient the wrong medical treatment can worsen the patient's condition. The wrong medical treatment can kill. Making the wrong changes in the health care system can reduce access to health care and reduce the quality of health care.

In one of my favorite episodes of MASH Captain Hawkeye Pierce is appointed the unit's chief surgeon. Major Frank Burns complains to a general when Hawkeye decides not to immediately operate on a badly wounded soldier who comes in. When the general arrives Hawkeye has been playing cards while the man was receiving a blood transfusion, etc. to stabilize his condition. Hawkeye tells the general he can now safely operate because the patient has been stabilized. Operating too soon would have jeopardized the patient's chances of survival.

Congressional Democrats continue to push a health care plan substantially similar to the one adopted by Massachusetts which is a failure according to the Boston Globe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachu... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

The program has failed to provide the universal care it was supposed to guarantee. Coverage is not affordable. The cost of the subsidized program has gone from $630 million in 2007 to $1.3 in 2009. High deductibles mean people who buy compulsory coverage may not be able to afford to use it.

Low income families aren't the only ones who have trouble affording health insurance. Many with incomes well above the poverty level like Ron Norton of Worcester, Mass., make too much to qualify for government assistance but not enough to afford insurance. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125304790936413347.html

The key to successful medical treatment is an accurate diagnosis. The problem with American health care is the high cost of health care rather than lack of insurance. High costs make it difficult for persons to afford insurance.

Doctors take x-rays or run tests as appropriate before choosing treatment for any major medical problem. Congress needs to do the same with health care. Congress needs to determine the specific causes of high costs to see if they are unnecessary.

For example, are doctors, hospital administrators, insurance executives, etc. receiving higher incomes than patients can afford to provide them? Are hospitals or other medical facilities making excessive profits by overcharging insurance companies? Are so called non-profit hospitals or clinics actually functioning as if they were profit making organizations? Are the uninsured including illegal aliens really responsible for high costs or are they being used as scapegoats by the health care industry to cover up the real cause? Are courts forcing unnecessary costs on the industry?

This is breast cancer awareness month so perhaps a breast cancer analogy is appropriate. Thirty years ago the treatment for all forms of breast cancer was usually a complete mastectomy. Today some, but not all, forms of breast cancer can be successfully treated with a simple lumpectomy that removes only the small tumors, provided the cancer is detected early enough. http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/surgery/mast_vs_lump.jsp

Thirty years ago toxic chemicals were used to treat breast and other cancers. Today a growing number of cancers can be treated with milder chemicals that may attack only the cancer cells without damaging other healthy cells. In some cases radiation can be targeted to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. oo The American health care "problem" doesn't require radical surgery or toxic chemicals. Improving American health care only requires a lumpectomy and mild chemicals.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

Satirical (anonymous) says…

Good blog.

This process isn't a sprint, it is a marathon. Better to get it right than just get something done. However, Obama is so desperate for a "victory," to show is is accomplishing something, he will likely sign anything.
October 21, 2009 at 11:46 a.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.
This Story

The report was part of a multi-pronged assault on the credibility of private insurers by Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). It came at a time when Rockefeller, President Obama and others are seeking to offer a public alternative to private health plans as part of broad health-care reform legislation. Health insurers are doing everything they can to block the public option.

At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care. Rockefeller said he was exploring "why consumers get such a raw deal from their insurance companies."

The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.

Potter said he worries "that the industry's charm offensive, which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns, may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans."

Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.

More on this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
October 21, 2009 at 11:54 a.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

Bill Moyers

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blo...

Maybe you’ve noticed a woman sitting behind Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Her name is Liz Fowler.

Fowler used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was its vice president of public policy. Baucus’ office failed to mention this in the press release announcing her appointment as senior counsel in February 2008, even though it went on at length about her expertise in “health care policy.”

Now she’s working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want – higher profits – and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.

A veteran of the revolving door, Fowler had a previous stint working for Senator Baucus – before her time at WellPoint. But wait, there’s more. The person who was Baucus top health advisor before he brought back Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. And why did she leave the staff of the committee? To go to work – surprise – at a firm representing the same company for which Liz Fowler worked – WellPoint. As a lobbyist.

You can’t tell the players without a scorecard in the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. It’s why they always win. They’ve been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House – health care, energy, financial reform, the Employee Free Choice Act and more – the soil has never been so fertile.

The health care industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress and more than 500 of them are former Congressional staff members, according to the Public Accountability Initiative’s LittleSis database.

Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, the industry has been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that whatever bill comes out of the Finance Committee puts for-profit insurance companies first -- by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.

In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent $380 million on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And -- don’t bother holding onto your socks -- a million and a half of it went to Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, the man who said he saw “a lot to like” in the two public option amendments proposed by Senators Rockefeller and Schumer, but voted no anyway.

The people in favor of a public alternative can’t scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career. In fact, over the last two decades, the current members of the entire finance committee have collected nearly $50 million from the health sector, a long-term investment that’s now paying off like a busted slot machine.
October 21, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

Eliminate Politicians as shareholders:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

The nations consumers could have excellent National Health insurance for all if one would remove:
*elected officials as shareholders
*special interest campaign funding
*the insurance industry recklessly spending health care dollars to bribe votes
*the news media offering misinformation ( their large advertising revenue is at stake)
October 21, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.
1029 (anonymous) says…

I really have no idea what's going on with healthcare. It's just too complicated for me to understand, but I get the gist of it from what they tell me on TV news shows. I know I worked hard to get a job that provides me with insurance, so I don't want to see insurance just given to lazy people who don't pull up the bootstraps and work hard. It wouldn't be fair.

More than anything, I just want Obama to fail at everything he tries to do so that my team (go Republicans!) can win back the White House in 2012.
October 21, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

Amen Satirical.

The health care reforms congress are working on have been characterized as a "crisis" such that they are so very urgent that they must get a bill passed so quickly that there is no time to even read the bills. I find this to be a particularly slimy approach to the legislation when you consider the fact much of Obama care wouldn’t take effect for several years.

People need to realize the true strength of our nation doesn't come from how many things our government gets involved in, but how many things our government is (supposedly) prevented from getting involved in. We're fast coming to the point where our country (and the rest of the world for that matter) have had about all the "help" from Washington that they can stand.
October 21, 2009 at 12:03 p.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

What's the difference between HR 676 and a peach pit lodged in a mandrill's bowels?
The peach pit has a chance of being passed.
October 21, 2009 at 12:04 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

Merrill - you crave abuse, don't you? Moyers is a dishonest man. He is not a credible source for anything besides far-left lunacy. He discredits the democratic party with his drivel. He is an intellectual embarrassment. You shouldn't cite him least you be so tainted.
October 21, 2009 at 12:10 p.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

"The key to successful medical treatment is an accurate diagnosis."

I agree, but also add a huge incentive for preventative care and for information to be computer accessible so the differing doctors/nurses don't have to repeat tests.
October 21, 2009 at 12:34 p.m.
Satirical (anonymous) says…

If "pro" is the opposite of "con," wouldn't "progress" be the opposite of "congress?" : )
October 21, 2009 at 1:13 p.m.
Guardian (anonymous) says…

If this health care bill is such a great idea;
1. Why is it that Congress is not going to participate?
2. Why is it that it cannot get passed through an
overwhelmingly Democratic Congress?
3. Why is it that Ted Kennedy did not go to a free health
care clinic for his treatment?
October 21, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

National Health Insurance is not a bad idea...in fact it would great for the country.

However...
*It would eliminate elected officials as shareholders
*It would eliminate special interest campaign funding
*It would eliminate the insurance industry recklessly spending health care dollars to bribe votes
*It would eliminate the news media offering misinformation ( their large advertising revenue is at stake)
*It would eliminate medical care as a reason for bankruptcy
*It would eliminate loss of insurance coverage for any reason
*It would eliminate the insurance industry over charging clients
*It would restore complete freedom of choice
• Eliminates industry high dollar bureaucracy
• Eliminates obscene profits
• Eliminates high corporate salaries
• Eliminates advertising expenses
* Eliminates billions in over charges
• Eliminates sales commissions
• Eliminates high dollar Shareholder dividends
* Eliminates Golden parachutes

In general eliminates reckless spending of YOUR health care dollars. All of that reckless spending increases the cost of the most expensive medical insurance in the world.
October 21, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Good blog.

Reason asks the right question: why is health care and insurance so expensive? Instead of finding ways to subsidize overpriced healthcare Congress should, as reason suggests, look into ways to reduce the costs. The problem is there's no incentive to lessen costs when Congress can borrow or print all the money it wants to pay for things. The Fed allows Congress to avoid this question; fiat money allows Congress to avoid this question. If Congress could only pay for things by directly raising taxes, then they would have to carefully consider any new spending since they risk upsetting the taxpaying voters. By allowing for a "backdoor" tax via the printing press, they can tax and spend without having to face the voters' ire.
October 21, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

So Merrill - If national health insurance is so great, why is it being done in secret?

Remember when the president promised he'd deliver transparency, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table" with everybody involved. Those that can't make it would be able to see "the negotiations televised on C-SPAN." Yet another broken Obama promise.

According to the media, the only people at this closed-door negotiation are liberal politicians. C-SPAN isn't there. How are the American people to know what deals are being cut? The left is writing this Obamacare bill in secret so they can railroad it through congress before the American people can raise objections to it.

Reasonable, clear-thinking people see this and will behave accordingly the next time they have a ballot in front of them.

P.S. Merrill - why not advocate a system where the individual person is in charge of spending their health care dollars? Do you think the government can spend your pay check better than you can?
October 21, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

With the equivalent lack of rationality and idiotic sarcasm as Mr. Numbers above:

I know everything that's going on with healthcare 'cuz I'm, like, intellectual and stuff. I know I haven't worked hard, or even much for that matter, but just 'cuz I have no drive or personal responsibility doesn't mean I should be denied leeching off those who do. Why should I have to work for what I need if I don't feel like it? That doesn't seem fair.

More than anything, I just want Obama to ramrod every entitlement program through, regardless whether it's been thoroughly and thoughtfully put together or even read by those that wish to make it law. The faster he does so means the faster I get paid! The bigger the guvment, the bigger my hunk o' cheese! Shove it down our throats, baby, I got all day to wait in line for my handout!
October 21, 2009 at 2:20 p.m.
Guardian (anonymous) says…

Perhaps we are being too harsh on this health care reform. Let's look at some other businesses the government took charge of.
United States Postal Service, Amtrak, Fannie Mae.
Ummm, well, let's look at the rules and regs of some easily understood government agencies.
irs, epa, fda.

Uhhhhh! Disregard the first part of this post!
October 21, 2009 at 2:39 p.m.
Guardian (anonymous) says…

Sooooooooooooo, I guess that means you don't have an answer to the questions jaywalker?
October 21, 2009 at 2:46 p.m.
GardenMomma (anonymous) says…

I guess the first questions to answer are "Does everyone have the right to equal health care opportunities? If it is not a right, then is it a privilege?"
October 21, 2009 at 2:55 p.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

To which questions, Guardian?
October 21, 2009 at 2:55 p.m.
tonymontana (anonymous) says…

Will Congress wreck health care? That implies that they once provided it.
October 21, 2009 at 2:58 p.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

"Will Congress wreck health care? That implies that they once provided it."

Um, no, it doesn't, tony.
October 21, 2009 at 3:10 p.m.
Guardian (anonymous) says…

Were you refering to my three questions in your previous post or was I mistaken?
October 21, 2009 at 3:11 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

Thats right Garden Momma - it is a privilege.

To be an American is to have guaranteed the right of equal opportunity. We all have the same opportunity to go out and make what we can of our lives. There is however, no guaranteed right to an equal outcome in life. To do so is tyranny because that requires the government to deprive some of their life and liberty (the piece of it required to earn a living) so that others can be given something they didn't earn.

If the TRUE goal of health care reform is to increase access to it, and reduce it's cost, there are scores of things that don't cost a dime that should have been done a very long time ago - but that isn't really the goal. The accumulation and abuse of power is the real goal.
October 21, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

No, no, Guardian. Those are solid questions, though. No, mine was a sarcastic retort to 1029's usual nonsense above.
October 21, 2009 at 3:19 p.m.
Guardian (anonymous) says…

Then I apologize for my confusion.
October 21, 2009 at 3:20 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

National health Insurance is the only proposal that reduces the cost by an estimated $350,000,000 annually. This is fiscally prudent.

How does National Health Insurance manage to reduce the cost by an estimated $350,000,000 annually?

• Eliminates industry high dollar bureaucracy
• Eliminates obscene profits
• Eliminates high corporate salaries
• Eliminates advertising
* Eliminates billions in over charges
• Eliminates sales commissions
• Eliminates high dollar Shareholder dividends
• Eliminates Special interest campaign dollars
* Eliminates Golden parachutes

In general eliminates reckless spending of YOUR health care dollars

* Eliminates Politicians as shareholders:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

* Eliminates Insurers Wrongfully Charging Consumers Billions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

*Eliminates Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04...
October 21, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.
ferrislives (anonymous) says…

I was fortunate enough to sit on a plane the other day with a friend and long-time military officer, and we talked at length about several domestic issues. And he had something very interesting to say about what appears good for the country vs what actually is good for us.

When he lived in Germany, his son went to a German school. He said that the left always like to talk about how great it is that Germany and other countries offer free college, but he said that the truth is that that the schools decide whether a child will go to college, vo-tech school, or work as a laborer in 4th GRADE!! Can you believe that? He also said that the thinks it's the same way in other countries, including France.

They also have school from 8-12, and the rest of the schoolwork is supposed to be picked up by the parents. He said that they do give money to families so that one of the parents can stay home, but for some parents, they still need to work. So obviously those are the kids that will be stuck in the lower-income jobs.

(Obviously I'm just going off of what he said, but he's a stand-up guy who has dedicated himself to our military, so I believe him.)

His point: things like college for all sound great, until you look at the details. I'm sure that a lot of Americans don't know about how it really works over there, but they should really education themselves on that before jumping the gun. And the same could be said for universal health care. Things aren't always greener on the other side.

That's just my two cents on the issue.
October 21, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

Tell me something Merrill: is is "fiscally prudent" for congress to completely ignore a long list of reforms that would lower costs and increase access to health care - that don't cost the tax payers a dime?

Why must the default position be borrowing and spending money we don't have? Or raising taxes on some class of people? Or cutting promised benefits? Or growing the size and scope of government that is already way too big / expensive? This behavior obviously doesn't pass the common sense test, so whats the motive? Care to take a stab at that?
October 21, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.
Satirical (anonymous) says…

ferrislives...

Europe is still largely based on ascribed status and a strict class structure. This is largely maintained through the education system. This is one of the reasons America is the best country on earth. People often complain that K-12 education abroad is better than the U.S. That may be true, but our Universities are the best in the world.

The way health care is ranked globally is b.s., in my opinion. Just like for our Universities, people come from all over the world for our doctors, and the entire world benefits from the innovative medical breakthroughs which are made in America. "Profit" isn't a 4-letter word.

When have you ever heard of the government taking over anything from the private sector and making it more efficient? In the private sector there are winner and losers, but the winners win more than the losers lose. When government takes over, there are only losers. Reform is needed, but government control isn't the answer. People think they would be getting the right to health care, but what they would really be getting is the right to wait in a line.
October 21, 2009 at 4:03 p.m.
Cappy (anonymous) says…

"Will Congress wreck health care?"

No, the insurance companies beat them to it.
October 21, 2009 at 4:03 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

USA health care is doing fine in so many ways. That is why health care will remain as is. Socialized medicine is not on the table for discussion. Socialized Medicine is what the military offers.

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance subject to the clients experience. CHOICE returns to the clients ballpark.

The question is USA medical insurance which is now the most expensive in the world. Why are elected officials protecting the most expensive medical insurance in the world?

We will have a USA National Health Insurance system designed to meet our criteria such as coverage 24/7 365 days year no matter what.

What should the USA expect?

A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. About $225 per month. Today the below insurance coverage actually costs about $1,100 per month.

* long term care such that cancer would require
* prescription drugs
* hospital
* surgical
* outpatient services
* primary and preventive care
* emergency services
* dental
* mental health
* home health
* physical therapy
* rehabilitation (including for substance abuse)
* vision care
* hearing services including hearing aids
* chiropractic
* durable medical equipment
* palliative care

HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments.

Changing nothing certainly will save nothing ever! In fact it does appear as though a 25% increase is on the way. Consider that insurance costs were at $13,000-$14,000 for
2008-2009. For 2010 the cost appears to be going to $18,310..... grab your wallets.
October 21, 2009 at 4:04 p.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

The Senate just shot down an attempt to pass a $247 billion doctor payoff that was an stab at getting medical groups to endorse Nobamacare.
{snort}

BTW, what's the difference between HR 676 and a peach pit lodged in a mandrill's bowels?
The peach pit has a chance of being passed.
October 21, 2009 at 4:16 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

Merrill - at the risk of sounding redundant, you don't know what you are talking about. The military does not have socialized medicine. If you think it does, you need to explain yourself.

You infer the idea of "changing nothing" is some how being embraced. Who is promoting this? Enlighten us.
October 21, 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
MyName (anonymous) says…

Well, it's nice to know that the insurance companies have apologists for their tactic of delay. The problem is that, other than a couple of surgery/cancer patient analogies, this blog entry did nothing to show what the harms of delay would be.

While I agree that the bill, in and of itself, will not solve the problem of costs, it is an important first step as neither the insurance companies (who are still making large profits while passing any increase in costs onto us) nor the hospitals have an incentive to reduce costs. This problem is not going to fix itself.

So if the government or some other big player doesn't step in, who will? And if now isn't a good time, then explain when a good time would be? 10 years from now when the costs have climbed to where only the very rich can afford decent insurance and everyone else is stuck with lousy care?
October 21, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

How about the "people" stepping in MyName?

What would be wrong with that? How about we give ordinary people the exact same tax deduction for health care expenses currently given only to employers? How about we let the people buy health insurance just like they buy car insurance, let them pick what they want and buy it where ever it is cheapest? How about we make pharmacies and doctors / hospitals advertise their prices on the web/in public? How about we limit "pain and suffering" damages in law suites so malpractice insurance would go down in cost? How about we let people put as much money they want into a health savings account completely tax free? How about simply enforcing the health insurance anti-trust laws currently on the books to prevent some of the monopolies that are out there driving up cost? How about we let people "own" their insurance policy so they can take it anywhere? How about we let people form purchasing pools so they can leverage the same discount big business gets? How about passing a law that requires insurance companies to give people a discount or a rebate if they choose a healthy life style? Why aren't medical records in electronic format? That would save a ton of money. How about we give any provider of health care to someone who couldn't pay a refundable tax credit in the amount of the care they provided?

None of those ideas cost a penny of tax money, but all of them gore somebody's sacred cow. The politicians are way more interested in making sure they don't endanger some big campaign donor than are in taking care of us. They would much rather pile up more debt / print more worthless money than do that.
October 21, 2009 at 5:27 p.m.
Guardian (anonymous) says…

What amazes me is that Biraq has not mandated everyone have life insurance. Think of all the money that would be gleaned by the government in taxes from life insurance payouts.
October 21, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.
ferrislives (anonymous) says…

Satirical, thanks for the comment. I agree with you, I'd rather have our educational system so that my children can choose what they want to be, even though there is a high cost to higher learning, as opposed to the system in Germany. What a farce.

I personally don't like how health insurance and pharmaceutical companies get away with so much crap in our country though, and I think that's where the focus should lie. I also like the idea of people buying into a non-government run insurance plan as a group, so that they can get better deals. But it shouldn't be run by our bigger-than-ever government. It's a complicated issue, and I wish it would be addressed as such.
October 21, 2009 at 5:58 p.m.
GardenMomma (anonymous) says…

What about a moral obligation by the government to keep it's citizens healthy by providing them the means to achieve healthiness?

Granted one cannot legislate morality, but isn't keeping citizens healthy and happy in the best interests of the government? A healthy citizen can work harder, produce more, and be a better contributor to society.
October 21, 2009 at 8:40 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Garden, that's not moral since it requires taking the property of one person to benefit another. The only universal morality is that of mutual nonharm, and that is the only kind that should be legislated by the government.
October 21, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
tbaker (anonymous) says…

GardenMomma - There is no moral obligation for government to keep citizens healthy. Its certainly in the government's interest for citizens to be concerned about keeping themselves healthy, and as such, government should do what it can to help people take care of themselves by making is as easy and as inexpensive as it can be.

The notion the federal government is some how obligated to "provide" health care (or just about anything else for that matter) is simply not an idea found in the design of the American federal government. It is not one of the federal government's enumerated powers in the constitution, and for good reason. It's not there because to do so imposes a form of tyranny on people (depredation of liberty) which is the exact opposite of what the framers were trying to achieve. The federal government's principal responsibility (was) to be the protector and guarantor of our personal freedoms and liberties - not the taker of them.

That said, there's nothing stopping people from amending the constitution to include such a right / role for the government.

You wrote: "....but isn't keeping citizens healthy and happy in the best interests of the government? A healthy citizen can work harder, produce more, and be a better contributor to society."

Do you know which political philosophy you sound like? Do you remember what was behind the Berlin Wall?

The point you appear to miss with this disturbing little paragraph is the fact people do not exist to serve the government. Our constitution says the opposite. Your motivation to see them healthy in order to better contribute to society should be an ancillary reason to promote their health, and certainly not a reason that even merits mentioning. People (in the US) exist to serve themselves - not the government. The US federal government exists to serve the people, and to protect and guarantee the sovereignty of each of them, so they may make of their lives what they will free from government tyranny.

Forgive the lecture GardenMomma - you caught me after a glass of wine. Before you brand me yet another heartless conservative, ponder this: Instead of measuring compassion by how many people depend on the government for assistance, consider measuring it by counting the number of people who no longer need it. Despite my scolding, I'm sure your paradigm is born of genuine concern for the less fortunate, but try to see that providing for them shouldn't be something that forces us to deprive someone else.
October 21, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

tbake,

Likin' ya more and more. You've become a member of my 'must stop scrollin' and read' list.
October 21, 2009 at 11:08 p.m.
ferrislives (anonymous) says…

This is the kind of story that makes me not trust the health insurance companies to run themselves: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_h...

I understand that they are a business, but this is morally wrong. And I think that these kinds of actions will be the health insurance companies downfall if ObamaCare does pass. I don't like over-regulation by our government, but these companies are shooting themselves in the foot.

If they don't want to be regulated by the government, then they need to take a good hard look at themselves when it comes to being a financially and morally successful company. Otherwise, the government will probably do it for them, right or wrong.
October 22, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.