Obama to Trash Military Health Care: letter to My US Representative.

This a copy of the email I sent my Representative today.

Dear Representative Buchanan.

I am writing to urge you to stop the Obama administration from trashing TriCare Prime. It looks as though this administration is going to balance the budget on the backs of active duty service persons and veterans by increasing the premiums over 400%, while leaving unionized federal workers untouched.

This is completely unacceptable. Veterans such as myself were promised healthcare for life upon retirement from military service. Instead, we pay for health care insurance through the TriCare program. And even this will get converted to Medicare at age 65.

To be clear, TriCare is not a hand out or even a hand up. It is an benefit earned after a lifetime of sacrifice that helps veterans and our families survive in this economy.

I would not complain about the current premium because it is very affordable when compared to other insurance programs. But, raising the premiums will be another slap in the face of those men and women who make the American way of life possible.

If the premiums are raised four or more times the current amount then what did government's contract with the troops mean? To me it means another failure of government to abide by its obligations to its citizens and their families in favor of political expediency. This all goes to the integrity of our government and how it values service to our country.

Again, I urge you to stand up to this President's misguided budget machinations and keep the promise to our veterans.

More information at: http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

Thank you for your support in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

First Sergeant
US Army, Retired

PS I will get back to you again before I turn 65 years old. My TriCare premiums are due to go up over 500% when Medicare takes over.

The Government Health Care Makes to the Floor

Last Saturday in a 60 (D) to 39 (R) vote, the US Senate in a rush to get a nationalized health care billed passed has moved their version of health care reform on to the floor of the US Senate for "debate", as they define it. These days debate mostly entails excluding opposing opinion. And certainly allowing no GOP amendments.

It was illuminating to see how blatant the Democrats are with their bribes and hypocracy, though. U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) received only $300 Million for her state (being called the Louisiana Purchase) for her vote. she'll vote for anything and is not afraid to brag about it. Another senator, one who railed against the public option, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), has been rolled it on as well. She made a wonderful speech in opposition to the public option and insisted she would not vote for a bill that included it, but voted to allow the bill with a public option still in it to go forward.

I honestly do not know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

Healthcare Reform:: Preexisting Conditions.

Denial of preexisting conditions is one of the talking points the administration and congress are using to try and sell their "public option" insurance plan. The president is using it as I type in his town hall meeting today.

Insurance companies do not refuse the vast majority of applicants because of preexisting health conditions. They require a waiting period before coverage of the preexisting condition starts, usually 12-18 months, and charge more for coverage.

We know this because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is "a federal law that:

* Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;
* Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;
* Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information; and
* Guarantees that certain individuals will have access to, and can renew, individual health insurance policies."

What can ObamaCare, or DemoCare, do to fix this?

They could expand HIPAA to include individuals who want to purchase healthcare insurance but who were not a member of a group plan. Of course this change would run up the cost of the insurance, but congress doesn't mind. They won't be in that insurance system. And besides, running up costs may just be their plan.

While providing health care is the humanitarian way, providing health care and insurance is not a right, as in a constitutionally protected right, such as free political speech or lodging soldiers in your home. If it were, it would be guaranteed by the US Constitution and given to Americans "free". Of course it cannot be free as the health care providers need to earn a living just like you and I, so they must be paid.

HR 3200's preexisting condition clause ensures the cost of insurance will increase. Ultimately someone must pay for it.

Government Mandated Health Care Passes the Senate Health Committee

It's not too late to call or write your senators to register your opposition to this country killer.

Reuters is reporting that the Senate Health Committee passed their version of the the Obama health care plan in a party-line 13-10 vote. The albatross is to be combined with the Senate Finance Committee's input, which they have not written yet. Then it will be passed through 4 more senate committees before it comes to the florr.

The bill ostensibly will insure the 46 million people in America that do not have health care insurance. Of course, opponents say that it will insure only about one quarter of that 46M at a cost of $1.5 Trillion.

Additionally, it will add:
- A government-run health care program (will destroy competition and nationalize health care)

- Require most Americans to obtain health insurance (who are they leaving out? Whose insurance plan? ANS: The government's plan)

- Mandate most employers to provide it to their workers. (to reduce job opportunities for middle America, after piling on income and other tax increases on them)

- The legislation also would seek to reduce costs in the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care industry. (by lowering doctors' and hospital fees, thus reducing the number of doctors and hospitals and other emergency services and by cutting Medicare and Medicaid)

Translated this all means the government is going to further tell individual Americans what is best for us and make you pay extra to for arousing their attention.

President Obama has promised to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by over $500 Billion to make it whither on the vine.

I this what you want?

Sign the petition at www.freeourhealthcarenow.com

Free Our Health Care Now Online Petition

Sign This Petition

You'll be a better person for it. This issue is not about partisan politics, it's about who is going to make your medical decisions for you and for your family.

The current proposed government solution to health care in America will drive up the cost, while congress dismantles Medicare and Medicaid. It will spend over a TRILLION dollars that the government does not have, and will only cover a small percentage of those it is supposed to include.

So, add your name to the 300, 000 who have already agreed that we need to take back health care from the government and put it back into the hands of those can best make decisions for themselves. This includes you.

Sign This Petition.

Healthcare Reform: The Public Option w/A View From the Huff

Bob Cesca, A Huffington Post Blogger, opines that the opposition to the Obama healthcare insurance reform is from the "crazy wing nuts" who are lying and exaggerating the situation. He had no real defense for the public option plan. Just your typical leftist insults on subjects he does not understand.

Insults:

"Political race-baiter (and, somehow, CNN contributor) Alex Castellanos"

"random "Republican analyst" on MSNBC: But this DMV crap on a stick is only one of many crazy attacks against the president's healthcare reform agenda and the public option."

"Predictably, as healthcare reform grows larger in the window, the claims from the far-right are becoming increasingly bizarre and ridiculous, topping, in some cases, the psychotic claims of, say, the Obama birthers."

He includes Sean Hannity, Representative Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck in his citing of "crazy wing nuts".

Then there is his absurd claims, while never once backing up anything he writes. (I've just read "True Patriot" by Eric Liu & Nick Hanauer. It has about the same in the lack of any evidence. So, this seems to be the way of the left.)

He states,

"First, no one in the government would mandate this switch."

(to the public option in lieu of their private sector plans)

What he simply doesn't know is the fact that there is no need to mandate it. The public option would put private sector providers out of business. Just as it almost did in Hawaii (an emergency session repealed the "public option" within 7 months of its creation to undo the damage)

"In non-wingnut reality, of course, the public option would function similarly to Medicare, which is hardly a spooky or unfamiliar program, and I challenge anyone to produce a single human being who would willingly give up his or her Medicare coverage."

Of course, this challenge is ridiculous as, except for the the very wealthy, no senior could afford the cost of private sector insurance. And there are reasons for that.

1. There aren't enough customers to spread the risk due to the government's unfair business tactics, which drives up the costs for everyone.

2. Seventy five percent (75%) of all Medicare part B payouts come from the federal government's general revenue. A small percentage comes from the participant's monthly payments (currently $96.40), their co-pays and payroll (FICA) taxes.

As for being reliable, the Trustees Summary Report for 2009 also says Medicare is unsustainable. Besides, President Obama is calling for reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by $509 Billion annually. So, where is the money coming from?

He continues with,

"Hannity deliberately inflated the number to 20 million and overlooked how and why people would leave their private plans. But I don't think he expected Tom Arnold to be the one to call him on his lies."

Well, all I have to say is, 'Hannity is a piker in the exaggeration department.

President Obama and all of his foot soldiers in the legacy media are claiming that they will cover 47,000,000 uninsured Americans. This is a huge exaggeration of the facts. According to the US Census Bureau the total of 45.65 million uninsured in 2007 included 9.73 million foreigners, bringing the total down to 35.92 million. Of those there were about 9 million who made over $75K per year and chose not to buy insurance, bringing the total down to 27 million Americans who were uninsured in 2007. Moreover, those numbers of uninsured was down in each category.

47 million vs. 27 million

Tell me again, Mr. Cesca, who is exaggerating?

Then, flailing about at Rep. Bachmann, he misconstrues this way...

"As I was researching the topic of crazy wingnut healthcare arguments, I thought perhaps Michele Bachmann would have an insane healthcare quote on the record for me to exploit and debunk. I was wrong. It turns out that Bachmann's most recent healthcare reform attack accidentally underscored the leading argument in favor of the public option."

And what caused that unfortunate circumstance for him? Rep. Bachmann had said,

"Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper."

To which he responds...

"Up to 40 percent cheaper? That's amazing. I've heard estimates of around 30 percent, but 40 percent is even better. Make sure to tell your Republican friends that The Michele Bachmann Unit says that the public option will be 40 percent less expensive than private health insurance."

On the very thin surface, it may look like an endorsement of the public option. When you know a little more, you realize that, once again, this will usurp the private sector's customer base and move huge numbers of Americans to the only plan available, the public option.

And will it cost less overall? Will it be better for individuals needing health care?

According to the CBO, probably not.



But, this is typical of your self-centered leftist blogger. He is way too busy raking the muck looking for insults rather than spending some time trying to dig out the truth. The president has also spent too much time on, well, I don't know what, because he simply has no idea of what is in this healthcare reform that he wants, he just wants it. And this example is typical of his supporters. They also have no clue of the consequences of too much government intruding into private sector free market economies (this explains, in part, how they can support Mr. Obama's policies.

ObamaCare or DemoCare is going to break the bank, if it isn't already beyond repair.

Public Health Care: A Letter To My Representative

A letter to my representative, sent June 25th, 2009.

Dear Representative Buchanan,

I have been watching the current health care debate and I have to say that the Kennedy plan is the wrong plan for our country and its future as the land of the free in a world where freedom is the exception.

While the president assured everyone that the public plan will be competitive and lower costs, we only have to look to the great state of Hawaii to know the outcome. Their program lasted 7 months before they decided to repeal it due to a massive shift in private sector insured to the state plan. They nearly bankrupted the private sector insurers and ran into the red in the state budget almost immediately.

I realize that the federal government can simply print more money when it runs out, but that solution is extraordinarily inflationary and will come back to haunt us when the real costs start settling in. Besides, the president and congress have already spent us into a hole that will take decades climb out of. We simply do not have the funding for a massive health care takeover by the federal government.

The president's claim of competitiveness is false. When employers see that the government will provide insurance, they will drop their employee coverage, just as happened in Hawaii. Private sector insurance companies cannot print their own money to make up for lost customers, so they will have to price themselves out of business. Additionally, how can he claim to be competitive when the Kennedy bill calls for taxing health care benefits, but excuses union members from paying it? In addition it is violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment and will coerce middle and lower income families to join a union to be able to have insurance.

I have a better idea. Though I'm sure some or all of this has been passed around before, I need to know that it is known to my representative.

First, change the income tax law to allow at a direct 10% or more deduction for all medical expenditures. Currently only the amount over 7% of one's gross income can be deducted on a 1040, and only when itemizing. Make it part of the 1040EZ form. It has been this way for many decades and tells a sad story about American politics. I believe this helps force people into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare.

Two: An additional dollar for dollar deduction for insurance premiums paid out of one's income. This will encourage many to purchase their own coverage instead of relying on Rep. Barney Frank for our insurance needs.

Three: Allow insurance companies to compete for customers across states. Interstate competition will lower costs by expanding the customer base. There are around 1300 health care insurance companies around this country. Let's get them all competing with each other.

Four: Phase out Medicaid and Medicare. The president has already said he will cut Medicare and Medicaid by $509 billion and no one squawked about it. This opens the door to move away from the government solution to a regulated private solution. It is a well-known fact that government insurance programs leads to much fraud and waste (around $60 Billion last year). Additionally, the people who watch their own hard earned money very closely are not so careful with free money from (what seems like) someone else. However, we all know, or should know, that that money to cover the doctor and hospital visits come out of our own pockets when the government is picking up the tab.

Five: Tort reform. The Democrat pundits are claiming it is a non-issue as the lawsuit judgments are relatively small when compared to the total cost of health care. But what is not said is that the malpractice insurance industry has not lowered their premiums. Doctors and hospitals still pay outrageous rates for malpractice insurance and this is passed along to the patients.

Modern society has Americans on-the-go all of the time to earn a living, raise children, maintain homes and personal budgets. I can see how there may not be much concern over having too many labs at the doctor's office when the bill is something they do not have to think about.

The answer to health care reform is for Americans to get involved in our own health care, reduce insurance costs through fair competition and tort reform. Please remember that there can be no competition between the government, with virtually unlimited assets, and private sector insurance companies, who depend on a large customer base.

I understand that changing health care from government issue to personal responsibility is a big job that may ultimately be impossible. Nevertheless, it is important to prevent this country from failing due to a lack of responsibility on the part of its citizens and a need for ever more and more power by some members of the federal government.

Thank you for your support.

Some Bloggers. Sheesh

Some bloggers censor their blogs. I would like to believe that the main attraction to to blogging is the free exchange of ideas.

However, while looking for a quote on public health care insurance, I came across "GOP Lies About American Health Care", Our Rants & Raves - Politics, by Michael Boh. It appears that Mr. Boh is only interested in opinions that match his own. I posted a rebuttal to his rant at about 9 PM Tuesday night and it yet to appear. I normally wouldn't be spending time ranting about someone else's blog, but this guy is just way too in the can for the Democrat policies and President Obama, while spewing hate for opposing politicians, and, apparently, opposing opinions.

Of course I have no problem with managing one's own blog, but censoring for opposing opinions is un-American. Especially when he says, "All opinions are welcome!"

I kind of liked Mikey's rules and thought I might plagiarize them for this blog. He'll never see it, so it would probably not be a problem. Here are his, very reasonable rules. Some of which he has violated.

Rules
1. Write your own. (Did that)
2. Respect to be respected. (Did that)
3. Debate the topic at hand. (Did that)
4. Cite only reputable facts. (a matter of opinion)
5. No distractions, distortions. (a matter of opinion)
6. No "F" bombs, sexual language. (Did not do that)
7. No harassing, abusing bloggers. (Did not do that)

All opinions are welcome! Michael (Not so much)

You can read Mikey's rant and decide if I violated any of his rules.

My post to Rants and Raves:

This is incredible.

The singular cause of skyrocketing health care costs is the federal government.

Medicare and Medicaid set prices, control access and reduce the paying customer base for private insurance. The US Congress setup these programs while being influenced by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical, hospital, and doctors' organizations.

More government, especially a "public Program", will only make it worse. Look to the lesson of the great state of Hawaii. They instituted public health care insurance to compete with private insurance and fill in the the insurance gap. Hawaiians dropped their I-have-to-pay-for-it-out-of-my-pocket insurance for the better deal of the state program.

Some competition, aye?

Since the state cannot print their own hope dollars, they closed it after 7 months.

The lie is not the with the Republicans on this. The lie is that Obama's program will be competition.

The lie is that it will reduce costs. Only competition will do that. And competition is what Obama is trying to destroy.

Moveitright.blogspot.com

Mr. Boh's response: by Michael Boh said...

Mover/GR - I had to reject your recent comments for the following reason(s): they include misleading and/or disreputable facts (Rule #4) as well as distrations/distortions (Rule #5).

Unlike most "conservative" blogs, I will post comments that disagree with my own. However, I will not do it if I feel they are designed to mislead or disrupt the issue being discussed. Have a good day. June 24, 2009 7:55 AM

Say No to Public Health Care Insurance

The president's plan for universal health care is another bad idea in a long line of bad ideas on this subject. If he, or anyone is congress, would like to actually help folks obtain health care insurance he would push for tort reform, interstate competitiveness, medical savings accounts, and dollar for dollar tax credits to incentivise working Americans to purchase health care insurance for themselves.

Some folks already have medical savings accounts, but it should be made available to everyone.
Interstate competitiveness may be another hard nut to crack because it would in large part remove the several states' power to regulate medical insurance.

I realize this would be a long shot in today's political environment as our illustrious representatives do not understand the term "tax cut". If you explain it to them (and there is no camera or microphone near by) they may let you know that you're talking crazy talk. Tax cuts indeed! Tax cuts to elected Democrats is like garlic to vampires.

The other issue, tort reform, isn't going to happen anytime soon either. Can you imagine two rooms full of lawyers who get to make law and give themselves pay raises suddenly deciding to cut or remove the the largest jackpot lawyers have ever found? Yeah, me either.

All of these issues would have to take on life as a real grass roots issue. Much like the Tea Parties around the country, or the grass roots effort that killed the lame version of so-called "immigration reform".

But, I cannot just pick on the president all of the time as on some points, he gets it right. In fact this is his forte. He will say that which is so true that it defies contradiction. Wonderful. But then he will go on to say something that is completely contradictory or simply wrong. He outlines, as much as he has been able to, his government health care plan in a letter to congress.

In his letter to congress concerning health care insurance he says,

"Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need. It is unsustainable for businesses, forcing more and more of them to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers. And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid are among the main drivers of enormous budget deficits that are threatening our economic future."

I agree 100%. Like a hammer he's hit the nail on the head.

But then he ruins it with this...

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest."

Public health care insurance is going to lower costs for everyone?

To borrow a phrase: "Here's yer sign."

But I wonder if Mr. Obama, or anyone in government, know why Health care and health care insurance has become so expensive? I believe they either do know why, and are not saying, or they really do not know why, in which case, they should be replaced with people who have a clue.

Health care in America has become prohibitively expensive because of our government. Through Medicare and Medicaid, government set prices on services and prescriptions, allow waste and fraud to run rampant, has become an unfair competitor to private insurance, and a lawyer led get-rich-quick scheme called "malpractice".

Sorry folks, but attributing cost savings to government would not only be unlikely, it would be impossible. I'm afraid our president's advisers have not learned the lessons of public health care insurance from the great state of Hawaii, the government plan to fill the gap for the uninsured in Hawaii. It lasted an entire seven (7) months before being dismantled. The reason? The people who already had insurance dropped their expensive private insurance in favor of the free insurance and almost bankrupted the state while destroying the private insurance companies. People are not stupid. If the government is going to use someone else's money to buy them insurance, it would only be in their best interests to get in on the deal. Of course, private insurance companies cannot force dollars out of the pockets of their customers, so they were left hanging. It won't work.

A quick glance at Medicare and Medicaid's history is a huge clue. In 1980 Medicare accounted for .7% of the country's health care spending. It has now grown to 19.7% of total health care spending. To ensure participation in this government program, Americans are forced into Medicare at age 65 or earlier if they receive Social Security Disability payments. All of this has reduced the number of people buying private insurance and a smaller customer base means higher prices. (just look at your utility bill. Save a lot and they raise the price.) Read more about Medicare here, here and here.

On Medicaid, the numbers are scary as well. (from Reuters, Report says Medicaid spending "unsustainable")

"In 1970, the report said, combined federal and state expenditures for Medicaid represented 0.4 percent of the economy, but this percentage grew to 0.9 percent in 1980, 1.2 percent in 1990, 2.0 percent in 2000 and 2.3 percent in 2007."

Another inflationary problem with universal health care insurance is the same problem that continues to run up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid: Cost control.

When I have to pay for something out of my pocket, I go for the best price I can get. If someone else is paying for it, then the price is not so much of a concern.

Malpractice Insurance. Doctors are charged huge premiums for malpractice insurance, which they must pass along to patients and their insurance companies. In order to hold back these costs, some governors have frozen insurance premiums in their states. Also, back in 2002 in the article, "High Insurance Premiums Jeopardize Rural OBs" (Rural Health News, Vol. 9, No. 1), they report...

"Citing data from a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, ACOG said that nationally, the median insurance premium for OB/GYNs increased 167 percent from 1982 to 1998. In 2000, it rose seven percent. In 2001, it went up another 12.5 percent. For 2002, the expected increase is 15 percent.

According to American Medical News, eight states saw two or more liability insurers raise rates by at least 30 percent in 2001. In more than 12 states, one or more insurers raised rates by 25 percent or more."

How can this not affect doctor, prescription and hospital fees?

Sheila Guilloton, of the Examiner, writes that...

"Malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs is reported to have one of the highest premium for medical malpractice, with some areas reporting premiums of $100,000 per year for OB/GYN coverage. Premiums in major metropolitan areas can be as much as $250,000 per year."

You can read more on The Tort Threat at the the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.)

On the Bill Bennett radio show, Morning In America, Senator Bill Frist said that when a doctor asked if a patient had insurance and the answer is "no", the doctor will prescribe generic, less expensive drugs. If the answer "yes", then the doctor can prescribe the more costly name brand drugs. Since a patient on Medicare or Medicaid is "insured", the fees and prescriptions will add to the taxpayers' burden.

If the federal government enacts public health care insurance, the same pattern will follow. People are not stupid. If they can get free (to them) health care insurance, they will abandon private insurers in favor of saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month. Wouldn't you?

So, there you have it. Medicare and Medicaid, along with malpractice insurance rates, are the prime reason that health care costs so much. The way to reduce these costs is not to add more government, as the president, his advisers and the US Congress believe. The answer is less government. Much less government.

Tax breaks will enable the working to afford their own insurance and that will act to keep medical expenses and insurance premiums lower. Tort reform will reduce the number of excuses insurance companies have to increase premiums while lowering doctor and hospital costs.

It needs to be mentioned that government is now intruding into areas of individual freedom that Americans are not accustomed to, such as deciding what to eat and how much exercise we need (or not), what kind of cars we need and what kind of energy usage is better for us. As government moves to further influence our lives, they will use the excuse of 'saving taxpayer dollars to reduce health care expenditures' by a reward and punishment system to be more healthy, just as I did when raising my children.

We are not children and do not need the impersonal government dictating lifestyles of Americans. Americans did just fine when there were no big government babysitting programs and we will do just fine again when they go away.

The left's universal health care plan, explained at Think Progress, The Case For A Public Health Care Plan, tries to make the case for government run "competitive" Medicare replacement. The smartest people in the room say that they want a "new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange" and is "on a level playing field with private health insurance plans". In several major sections, they describe the benefits, as they see them; Lowers cost, improves quality, designing fair public-private competition.

Is this a smart idea and will it accomplish those goals?

Uh, no. It is not a smart plan unless your goal is to wipe out private insurance companies and make virtually everyone dependent on the government's largess.

First off, it is impossible for private insurers to compete with government. Proffering the idea that it can be done "competitively" is pure nonsense designed to influence the slow witted, the uninformed and the gullible. Recall that the federal government is allegedly a "non-profit" organization with the ability to print money (hope dollars) and force us to pay for their mistakes.

Take the lesson from the Great State of Hawaii. In the editorial, Study: Hawaii's Lessons in the Perils of Universal Health Insurance, By Carrie Lukas, 4/3/2009, the consequences of government mandated universal health care are spelled out.

Highlights from the study:

• Before expanding government programs to create “universal” health insurance, policymakers should consider states' experiences with similar efforts.

• Hawaii created a universal health insurance program in hopes of reaching the uninsured population, but found that more than eight in ten of those who enrolled previously had insurance. Lawmakers decided to terminate this program just seven months after its launch.

• Government programs to create free or subsidized insurance will encourage many who currently have private insurance to join the government program. This is inefficient and will ultimately erode the private insurance system in the United States.

It was sold as "competitive" with private insurance policy rates, 8 of 10 who signed up for the government program already had health care insurance. This means that for those had to stay with their private insurance company, the costs were going to skyrocket. Fewer paying customers means higher premiums in order to provide the same level of coverage. They new that, so they dropped it in favor of the "free" health coverage.

Then, the legislature did not expect the mass migration to the state system and it ran way over budget.

Congresses, state and federal, have a long grand tradition of unintended consequences. Normally, average citizens shouldn't worry too much about it, but in recent months their unintended consequences have cost us at least 6 million jobs, over $500,000.00 in debt to each household (TARP, Stimulus, budgets, etc.), and a breakdown of traditional families.

Finally, Hawaii had to rescind the law after 7 months to save their budget and to save those privately insured voters who were going to take a beating from their government. Just like President Obama is planning on doing to you.

Medicare and Medicaid spiraled up in a similar fashion and continues to spiral out of control even now. The US Congress created Medicare in 1965 (H.R. 6675) and have changed it many times. But nothing they've changed has helped to lower health care costs.

The power of government is a free market killer when abused by those who do not understand the US Constitution, the American way, or capitalism.

Republican Plan: A one page idealistic document at this point, looks a lot like an Obama campaign speech, only less substance.

My plan: There is a simple fix to health care in America: Tax cuts, tort reform and get government out of the way.

A direct one or one dollar tax cuts to those who buy their own health care insurance. It will incentivise individuals to buy their own insurance. This will be hard to enact because it would remove the need for our earnings from the US Congress. They don't like that sort of talk either.

Tort reform. Too many judgments are based on emotion rather medical fact. This vastly increases the cost of liability insurance for doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency medical services. While I believe in holding medical personnel and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their services and products, the laws that allow any law suit to turn a "victim" into a prize winner needs to change.

Liability judgments have the additional consequence of making free clinics extinct. Remember them? Free clinics used to be everywhere and doctors along with other medical personnel could provide pro bono services to the poor. No more. It costs too much and the government is taking care of the poor, right? Not.

Government has been unfairly competing against private insurance companies with Medicare and Medicaid, as mentioned above. With the government's lack of oversight billions of dollars are wasted each year on fraud and abuse of the system. The answer is to get rid of that system.