Wednesday, June 8, 2011

To Ms. Schultz and the Democratic Party--Let's Follow The Law!


Recently Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), when discussing the problem of illegal immigration, spoke about how Republicans actually want to consider being here illegally as being "against the law". Well, I for one do consider being here illegally against the law, and I think anyone here against the law needs to leave. We have plenty of people who want to come here legally, who want to play by the rules and do it the right way. They should have priority when it comes to becoming citizens. There should be no path to an amnesty of any kind. We need to once again become a nation based on the rule of law. It is obvious that the Democrats only want illegals to be made citizens so they can get their votes.
Today, this same person, once again in the name of the Democratic party, made a statement that Republicans wanted to go all the way back to "Jim Crow" and that what Republicans want to do will disenfranchise those who are more likely to vote Democrat. What is it that Republicans want to do that is so racist and horrible? They want to have people show identification at the polls to make sure there isn't any fraud going on. What is Ms. Wasserman Schultz saying? Is she saying that a large constituency of the Democratic party can't produce identification? If they can, why is it a problem? Surely she isn't implying once again that Democrats don't want to follow a law? First illegal immigrants shouldn't be considered as breaking the law, now we shouldn't try to make sure our voting laws are being upheld and we don't have fraudulent people voting. I think it would be better if the Democratic party chair officially recognize that it is against the law to be here illegally, and that it is an affront to our democratic institutions to label a group of people as racist who only want to uphold the integrity of our system.

Health Care Mess


One of the larger problems facing the nation is what the heck to do about health care. I do have to commend Barack Obama for at least trying to do something about health care. However, I feel he and his administration have gone about it the wrong way. The huge new bureaucracies which have been and are being created, the complex exchanges, the coercive regulations facing business, the layer upon layer of government red tape, the need for thousands of waivers to prevent catastrophe and the questions about possible conflicts of interest these waivers create--for these reasons and more the plan known as "Obamacare" should be overturned. It also looks as if it may be unconstitutional from the viewpoint that it abrogates states' rights, but we'll see when that case comes up. Its constitutionality is also being tested concerning the government's ability to force people to buy a product. We'll see how this one comes out as well.
I do think that both of these ideas are unconstitutional, but not because government doesn't have the power to coerce. Government coerces all the time. If you don't buy auto insurance you can't legally drive your car and stiff penalties face you if you are caught. However, this is a power exercised by the states. I think that health care should work the same way. It should be a state issue. States should mandate health care coverage and have a means test which would identify a pool of people who need assistance obtaining coverage. These people would receive their health insurance for free, and their policies should not have deductibles. The means test could even be on a sliding scale so that people approaching poverty could receive some assistance with their health care costs. The details of this and the associated costs need to be worked out, but two points are relevant here. First, if we are going to have universal coverage, it is going to cost a lot of money, no matter what the system. Second, I do NOT think that any system should be federalized. It should be run by individual states. Block grants to cover costs could come from federal taxes, and be apportioned by population, or federal taxes could go down and state taxes go up. Either way would need to be worked out.
The other side of the issue, cost of care, is even more important. If cost of care can be reduced, costs will come down across the board. I have had a brain tumor removed, and my wife has fought breast cancer. My son was recently diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease which almost killed him. In all three cases insurance covered the bulk of expenses, but when I saw the bills I was astounded. Diagnostic tests which cost thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars for hospital stays, doctor visits which cost hundreds and lasted five minutes, the list goes on and on. My wife, who is a breast cancer survivor, needed a certain type of shot when undergoing treatment which cost $3000 per dose! These type of exorbitant costs are ridiculous and to me are about as much of a scandal as a $3000 hammer or a $12,000 toilet, things we saw before when we had a scandal in defense spending. So the following is what I would recommend from a cost standpoint. First of all, I've said in a previous post that I recommend starting a program which would be run like the service academies, only for doctors. Students who were accepted into this program to study medicine would be required to work for six years in government run hospitals such as VA hospitals, or in government run clinics which would service the poorest in our society. They would work for a reduced income compared to others in the field but after their six years they could become a "free agent", so to speak, and go into private practice or join some other form of doctor group. They could also continue to serve their country by staying in their position, which would have a graduated pay system much like civil service.
In addition to this idea, I would give tax credits to doctors' offices and other clinics to buy medical equipment (as long as it was American made) so tests could be done on the premises. When there is a huge supply of medical equipment, costs for tests will go down. An X-Ray shouldn't cost over $1000!! An MRI shouldn't cost $3000!! Testing a patient's blood shouldn't cost hundreds or thousands! These machines and testing equipment should be everywhere, much as you can find blood pressure machines at every drugstore you visit. Granted, those aren't truly diagnostic in nature, but it does show that if you have enough machines it becomes cheap to use them. In addition, I would increase the incentives for people to buy machines made in America. This would help with our employment situation as well as help solve medical costs. We also need to enact tort reform, which would relieve the crushing insurance costs facing doctors, thereby further lowering costs.
So, the health care problem isn't insurmountable--no problem is. If we think of these things in logical terms, we can solve anything. This is America. We've always been able to solve our problems. Our problems right now are many. This is one of them.