I am only going to touch on the “public insurance option” in this post because that seems to be the BIG push right now from the White House. The Obama administration has it hard up for a public insurance option to save health care in America. Apparently the only real reason we have issues with health care in this country is because of mean spirited insurance companies in the private sector who are making things hard for the common folk out there in every day America. (add them to your hate list, right under oil companies and the rich)

The government wants to create an affordable insurance policy so every citizen (and even non-citizens if you dig) in the country has access to health care.

I for one didn’t know that merely having insurance granted you access to health care, nor did I know that without it you couldn’t even be seen in an Emergency room.

The public option has created quite a firestorm of opposition from the citizens of the US that the White House indicated over the weekend that they would be willing to remove the plan from the reform bills in play to help get the ball rolling again. Well fast-forward to Tuesday, and the Obama administration is again saying that the public option is the “best way” to expand access to care and lower costs.

Best way? How about this, Mr. President…

Currently it is NOT an option for the public to shop around for the best plan to cover their health care needs outside of those options offered in the confines of their state. If the market in their state has driven out all competition, costs rise dramatically because there is no other option and those who need, will pay. With this public option, under the Obama plan, one company (the Government) would be able to sell their wares over state lines to any and all American taxpayers, leaving the private insurance dealers locked in state borders with no room to compete. Yes, this may initially drive down some costs, but what is wrong with simply lifting the restrictions on the private sector and allow WE THE PEOPLE to shop nation wide for a plan that fits our needs and budgets? Why can’t we take baby steps here? Let loose the private sector and let it correct itself, and if that doesn’t fit your needs, then take another step. Try letting me deduct the costs of my health insurance from my taxable income, come April 15th. Allow the public to open medical savings accounts, let us deduct a specified amount from our pay each month to put towards major medical incidents, should they arise.

We have so many elements of our daily life, already run by government, and I can’t come up with one that I would classify as remotely efficient.The Post Office, Veteran Healthcare, Education… they can’t even provide men and women who volunteer their lives to stand in harms way and potentially lose their life for their country the proper armor and equipment to fight at peak efficiency.

We’re supposed to just willingly hand over the keys to them so they can make us all better without objection? I think not.

From my perspective, this has no bearing on you or I’s personal health or our access to anything… it’s a power grab. If you sweep the system and over time, create massive growth in the dependent class in America, you shore up votes that ensure you remain in your seat and at the control panel for a long time forward.

Ron Paul produced this 7 min spot on the problems and issues of the looming federalized medical program. (Dr. Paul has practiced medicine for over 30 years… he knows the business)

It took George a good 3 tries and about 12 minutes of air time to squeeze a response to this question out of Hillary Clinton

What happens to people who choose not to have government healthcare?

Remember, under Hillary’s plan, it does NOT matter if you need/want coverage or not… you will be forced to enroll…

After 12 minutes of meandering around the answer she DID NOT want to say, out came…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to bear down on this question one more time…. Will you garnish wages of people who don’t comply, don’t buy the insurance?

SEN. CLINTON: George, we will have an enforcement mechanism. Whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.

I’ve said it about a billion times, you cannot mandate a program or policy and expect voluntary enrollment from the whole of the people… if you desire 100% enrollment, you have to enact a negative punishment to enforce your policy. In this case, Clinton would garnish your wages or enact negative taxation policy against you for simply not enrolling in a plan the GOVERNMENT feels is best for you.

I’m not in favor of ANY of the Democratic Candidates, but I really think of the two options you guys have on that side, as far as health care goes, Obama has the upper hand on Hillary here.

The big question I had the other day was “what if I don’t”… would there be any punishment? According to Hillary, she hasn’t thought of THAT as of yet, but they want to dole out tax credits and ‘incentives’ to goad people into signing up. No word yet on what incentives would be dangled in your face, yet doesn’t it seem odd to you that a plan that relies HEAVILY on taxation would reward people with tax credits? How much are you willing to bet she’s talking tax credits for people who don’t even need them (as in those “poor” people who don’t even PAY taxes to begin with… income redistribution at its best folks.)

Now, bear in mind this isn’t a GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED plan… (only because it lacks a place in the alphabet soup of DC bureaucracy) but according to Hillary, she’s going so far as to say she dreams of a day when you have to prove you’re insured before you can even be employed… by ANYONE. Oh, and it cannot be just any policy picked up along the roadside, it has to be approved by the government. One other thing… if you buy too MUCH insurance, or a policy that covers you “too much” (whatever that means) you face government penalties.

Now tell me, for a plan that ISN’T government controlled there’s an awful lot of penalties being fleshed out by the government… don’t you think?

Yesterday, Hillary announced her plans for our health care system if she were to become the next President of the United States. She made sure (at least while the cameras were running) to stress that it is not a “government RUN” care plan. Keep in mind that it is not government run because her plan wouldn’t create a government agency to monitor the plan… and that’s the out.

The plan would require businesses to obtain insurance for their employees, and would require all American citizens to have a policy whether it be a personal policy or a work policy. Wondering who will be footing a large portion of the cost of this plan? That’s easy, the rich. Under Hillary’s plan, the wealthy in America would foot a huge portion of the bill for our national health care to make things “fair” for the “less fortunate”. The remaining $100 Billion (quoted from Hillary – more likely to be MUCH higher over time) would be taken up annually by the federal government.

Now, with all of that being said, there are reasons I take issue with this plan and one big one appears in bold.

REQUIRED – to insist (firmly demand).

Usually when someone requires something of someone else, there is a punishment for non-compliance. Otherwise your demands become fruitless and your goals fall through the floor. If I require my daughter to clean her room once a week but lay down nothing as a consequence for her inaction, do you HONESTLY believe she would clean her room once a week? She may do it here and there on her own because it has gotten out of hand, but the responsibility aspect of keeping her schedule is out the window.

Much like anyone else in the fight to redo our health care system, there is a lot of talk using forceful words like “require” but not one person has added in the consequences they think should be tagged onto those requirements. THOSE I’d like to hear.

The next bit I strongly disagree with in this plan is the beloved pet of the Democratic Party, taxation of the wealthy. Income redistribution is the wet dream of all wet dreams of liberal politics. It is what fuels a LOT of their voter base to keep them in power. The rich have a lot of money, and obviously they’re not doing any good with it so why not take some of that money that is just sitting there, and put it to good use!

Her biggest argument FOR the addition of the “requirement” aspect of these bills is that we’re required to have auto insurance, why should it be any different for health insurance? One small thing here Hillary, say I own 400 acres of land, and I build some roads on it and buy a car. 100% of that land is mine, the roads are mine and the car is mine, I do not need insurance at all to drive on my roads. Where I NEED insurance is when I get into my car, and touch my wheels onto GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Got it yet? I am not government property, never will be. By equating my body and the need for insurance to the requirement (keep in mind you can be JAILED for non-compliance on this one) for car insurance on government roads is ridiculous. I am my own responsibility. If I don’t want insurance and I die of cancer, MY BAD!

There are problems with our current system, but mandating the coercion of the American public into health care is not the way to fix it. A HUGE portion of our issues are legal issues… can you say frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasers? Get rid of those and you’ve taken a step in the right direction. Government involvement into my health is NOT THE ANSWER.