Ok, I am rational now. I feel rejuvenated today.!

I stayed up late last night, there was a lot on my mind.

I went to the doctor yesterday for our little munchkin. I figured the doctor was going to tell us that she had the flu, or a really bad cold. However, he was listening to her chest with the stethoscope for quite some time. I started to feel a little concerned. After he was done listening he informed me that Madeline has pneumonia!!! My heart sank, but I held back the tears. She is ok of course and this is nothing abnormal, but I am sure all of you Mothers could imagine how I felt. The doctor assured me that she would be fine and get better quite quickly. Matt (the most wonderful husband and Father in the world) rushed home from work so he could pick up Madeline's medicine. She woke up this morning all stuffy and congested, but with that sparkling personality which indicated to me that aaaaahhhhhhhh, she is feeling better.

So, I wanted to somewhat redeem myself from my ranting and raving regarding my political frustrations on my previous post. I am not saying that I would like to take back everything that said before, otherwise I would just erase the post. I am saying that I would like to clear up any misconceptions due to my poor delivery at times.

We live in a nation with three different political parties; Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I know there are conservative and liberal Republicans and the same for Democrats. I know there are many individuals who are members of these political parties who do not agree with every policy that their party supports and may not support. I apologize if it sounded like I think ALL liberals are bad people. I DO NOT feel that way at all. I believe that a good majority are very good people and truly do mean well. I am not speaking against the person; I am speaking against what the Democratic Party itself stands for. I do know many wonderful people who support the very policies that I am against. This does not make them a bad person (although i do question the person Obama is, due to his thoughts on abortion); it does not make me a bad person. However, I feel it to be my responsibility as an American to make sure my voice is heard. I know I do it in a blunt and sometimes angry way, but that is me. Everyone is so big on being politically correct and tiptoeing around on eggshells so no ones feelings are hurt. I do not want to be mean and wrongfully judgmental, yet I want there to be no qualms or lack of clarity as to where I stand. I do feel that harshness is even necessary at times. No, I do not feel it is right to make mean and harmful and immature accusations. However, at times when someone is speaking to me in a warm and fluffy manner I just don't listen, or give heed to what they are saying. At times I need an in your face speech that will really penetrate and wake me up from some of my nonsense. At times I like to speak in a warm and fluffy manner and at other times I feel the need to just say it like it is. I hope what I am saying here is not a bunch of gibberish. I really just wanted to clear the air and explain where I am coming from. I would like to explain a little more about why I feel so strongly against universal health care as well.

I was studying some information on the internet and I enjoyed this page that I came across and therefore thought I would share it with all of you. It outlines reasons why the government should provide universal health care and why it should not. Below the article I will expand a little about my feelings concerning the issue. Please enjoy:

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

In a Nutshell

It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada.

-Yes they should provide free universal health care:

The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.

Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.

We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor’s office usually maintains his or her own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.

We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible; leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything that should never be a problem.

Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally draining profession.

Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full-blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.

-No they should not provide free universal health care:

There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?

Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.

Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?

A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.

Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?

Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives; further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.

Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternatives plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.



I like the paragraph about how government control will affect patient flexibility. I am sure most of you are aware that I LOVE the TLC channel. I am not sure if any of you saw the episode about the tallest living woman in the world? There was another episode called "Tree Man." This man had HPV, which caused his body to be covered in warts that formed into branch like limbs, covering his entire body and face. The woman, Yoa Defen, is from Eastern China. She has a brain tumor, which causes her body to produce mass amounts of growth hormone. Due to the abnormal amounts of growth hormone her body will not stop growing, causing her heart to work harder than it can handle. She also has an extreme case of osteoporosis and her bones are deteriorating. If the tumor is not removed it will continue to grow and she will die. A doctor from the United States offered her free surgery to remove the tumor, so she could live. Many of the people in China and the government in China will do anything to save face. They did not want the US to take care of her because it would make them look bad. The doctors in China met together regarding Yoa Defen's case to decide if they would provide the surgery for her. They elected not to. She was sent home with vitamins to help her nutrition improve; however they would not cure her. She lies at home with a blind hope that these vitamins will make her better. My heart broke as I watched this and I realized that I live in the US where I choose what type of health care I can have and no one votes as to weather I am worth saving or not. We have so many hospitals in the US, which are required to help those who cannot otherwise afford health care. These hospitals are required to accept individuals who do not have insurance.

The case of the tree man is another sad story. Dede from Indonesia is afflicted with warts caused by HPV. The doctors in Indonesia once removed the warts from Dede, however they grew back. A doctor in the US offered his help with Dede, but again their power hungry government was more concerned about saving face than the health and well being of this man. The US doctor was trying to inform the Indonesian doctors that treating the HPV would prevent regrowth, while surgically removing the warts could not only kill Dede (due to his declining health), but the warts would just grow back. The doctor from the US continually called Indonesia trying to offer his help. Yet one of the Indonesian officials lied on tv and said that every time they called the US for help we would just hang up on them. Again, another depressing story. So, you ask me why I sound angry at times. These are some of the reasons I am angry. This is the type of government we are heading towards when we invite the government to control our health care. Little by little our freedom of choice and individuality is being ripped out from under us.

Health is something that is very important to me. For the most part I try to take care of myself to the best of my ability. I don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs. I exercise on a daily basis and do the best I can to stay emotionally sane and strong as well. The US is not exactly known to be a nation full of the healthiest people. I also remember going to school with many people that did drugs and I can assume that some of them still continue to do drugs. The US (or any other country really) is not renown for its spread of the teaching of abstinence either. Is it truly fair that while I can be saving money for my children to go to school, or for me and my husband to retire, that I will be forced to pay for those who do not take the time or energy to take care of themselves. We are enabling people who do not take care of themselves by providing free health care for them. Wouldn’t it be better to teach them personal responsibility, to educate them about eating healthy and exercise? Since it will most likely become so expensive to care for those who do not take care of themselves, I am sure our government will initiate some mandatory laws regarding what we eat, or how we exercise. Wow, more power to the government, less freedom of choice. I was enraged when the government wanted to take away unhealthy food in vending machines at schools. Don’t get me wrong I think that schools should offer just as much healthy food as they do unhealthy, but who is the parent here, those who gave life to their child, or the government? We need to realize that we are handing over our human rights to the very people that cannot even keep our social security system in check.

I am done for now, but I hope all of us really think about this and stand up for what is right. I care about the future of my daughter and don’t want her to suffer because of the mistakes of previous generations.