Is Health Reform Meant To Save Social Security?

I am beginning to wonder if health care reform is meant to solve the social security problem. Social security is running out of funds. How can less money be spent on social security? Every year more and more people are entering the system. If fewer people received social security, the system could be saved. If medical treatment was restricted to those who received social security, the number of recipients would be reduced.

All the health care proposals being considered cut Medicare by over 500 billion dollars. As more people enter Medicare, how can costs be massively cut and benefits not be affected? Eliminating fraud alone will not accomplish this and why has eliminating fraud not been addressed long ago? The government says it will cut waste. So what does the government consider waste? Is it denying treatment to seniors when that treatment would be approved for those who are younger? Is this waste? Some of the president’s remarks indicate that it would be.

Medicare already has arbitrary restrictions. A bone density test can not be ordered without a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is diagnosed by a bone density scan. It is a Catch 22. This is government bureaucracy at work.

Only half the doctors in this country currently accept Medicare. Next year, their reimbursement will be cut by twenty-one percent. Other cuts are proposed for the not so distant future. Fewer and fewer doctors will accept Medicare. Lines will get longer and in some areas cease to exist.

The current health care proposals are all a bad deal for seniors. The health care proposals are being paid for by cuts that only effect seniors. The plans are build on the backs of seniors. Plans would virtually eliminate Medicare Advantage, which supplies health care to about twenty-five percent of seniors. Many of these are low income seniors. In some sections of the country this is the only plan available. Civilizations are judged by how they treat their very young and very old. It is not about “cost effectiveness”. It’s about valuing human life.

Signed,
The Electorate

Retaining Our Health Care

To Congress,

We are told that if we are happy with our current health care plan, we can keep it. The government will do nothing to prevent this. This is not correct. Private insurance plans can not compete with a government run, tax subsidized health care plan. Using Medicare as an example, the government only pays 71% of normal hospital fees and 81% of normal doctor fees. The remaining cost is transferred to other payers. This forces the cost of insurance up for other payers.

May I repeat?

Private health care insurance companies can not compete. Private companies will be force out of business.They are not publicly subsidized. Their price has to be more than any subsidized plan. Most workers pay for part of their work health care plan. Even if the government does not tax our health care benefits, which they would like to do, eventually we will not be able to afford the work plan. We will be forced into the government plan. Businesses will find it equally hard to continue to offer health care. Government costs and regulations will make it fiscally infeasible for businesses to offer health care at work.

The government will tax behavior it does not want and reward behavior it does want. It's the old carrot stick theory - used against us. Eventually everyone one will be forced into the government run plan. That is the end game - the one insurer plan.

Signed,
The Electorate

Nationalized Health Care? No, thanks.

From a letter sent June 4, 2009.

I am having serious doubts about Congress's intents and capabilities. Are they actually seeking to bankrupt this country or are they like a kid in a candy store that can't exercise self-control? Congress really, really wants a nationalized health care system to replace our current system. So they are bound and determined to do this no matter what the consequences. Our health care problem is mainly that 16% do not have it. Yes, costs have to be contained. Reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits would help that. Why is Congress seeking to throw away the best medical care in the world and replacing it with something inferior? This is not logical. There are simpler and less expensive ways to cover the uninsured.

1/ Increase the number of medical schools. Hospitals can not fill their internships and residencies with those currently graduating from our medical schools.

2/ Dramatically increase the number of free clinics for those that do not have insurance. These could be available if your income is below a certain point - $50,000 is reasonable ( We do not need SChip for adults.). If your income is over this, you can afford medical insurance.

3/ Forgive current loans and offer educational loans that will also be forgiven for doctors, if they agree to work at these clinics for five years at a set fee. This would encourage more students to enter the medical field and could be applied to residents who will have fulfilled their residency in June and to others who have done so in the last five years.

Doing these things could provide health care for the currently uninsured while allowing the rest of the country to retain their health care insurance. The country would save billions and the government would not be involved in our medical decisions. The question is does Congress want to provide health care for all citizens or do they want to control all health care? Your vote will reflect the answer to this question.

Taxing Workplace Benefits

From a letter sent on May 21, 2009.

Congress is considering paying for their health care proposal by taxing the health care benefits that we receive at our workplace as income. This is nothing but another tax hike on the middle class. What happened to 95% of people will have their taxes lowered? You aren't raising our tax rate, but raising the amount of income that is being taxed. We aren't suppose to realize this is a tax increase!!

When John McCain suggested taxing health care benefits and giving each family a $5000. tax credit, Democrats crucified him. Now Congress thinks this is a really good idea - without the tax credit. What hypocrisy! Middle class taxes are already too high. We are struggling here in the real world. Now Congress wants to raise middle class taxes to finance a program we do not want. A program that will bankrupt this country - like it did European countries - and deliver inferior health care. It is my belief that the federal government doesn't just want to provide health care for the approximately 16% of people who do not have it. I believe it wants to force the 84% out of their better private plans by making those plans unaffordable.

Last week the President stated that with the new health care plan businesses could use the money that they saved by not providing health care in a better manner. That is the ultimate plan. Socialized health care for all - with health care rationing and the government determining what treatment is "cost effective" (read stimulus bill) and therefore allowable. Why does Congress seek to throw away the best health care system in the world for an inferior plan?