August 12, 2009

The Fundamental Problem with National Health Care

As society becomes more and more expectant of Government handouts, it is no surprise to see that plan for national health care has made its way to the forefront. Now more than ever, the Liberals in congress and the white house are working feverishly to put into place the biggest Government program since the New Deal. If one focuses through the glitter, one would see the underlying problem with such a program: it promotes Government dependence, not self-reliance.

The more Government programs that are in place, the more the population of the "less fortunate" will rise. These programs are touted as the answer to bring the "less fortunate" to a better status of life. However, it does exactly the opposite. Masquerading as a solution to their problems, it ends up being a black hole that enlarges with each piece of assistance legislation that is passed. Is it our job to help the less fortunate in society? Sure - we all were less fortunate at one time or another. However, the definition of "help" is where true Conservatives would differ with their weaker brother, the Liberal. Conservatives see the potential in everyone and want to provide the opportunity to make something good of one's self. The taste of success is habit forming. But, these are individual characteristics. We don't need the Government to tell us how to live our lives or what our purpose is in this country. Our purpose in this country is two-fold: to love her and to do what I can, not collectively, but individually, to make her great. If everyone individually bettered themselves, then the collective would take care of itself. That's why the idea of team work, where one person picks the slack of others, is garbage! Work and do to the best of your ability. That will translate into self-confidence and self-reliance.

Why can't people afford health care? (And, the numbers you hear on TV are grossly exaggerated, by the way). The majority of people that can't is because they haven't made the provisions in their lives to be able to afford it. What kind of job do you have? What kind of schooling do you have? How much effort did you put into those things?? It isn't your job's responsibility to provide health care to you. That's why they call them "benefits" and not "obligations."

What about "no preexisting conditions?" A preexisting condition is a condition that one has, medically, that existed prior to obtaining health insurance, etc. The health insurance company says that since you had this condition prior to getting coverage, we won't cover it. Does that sound harsh?! Remember, an insurance company has one purpose, to transfer the financial risk you take to themselves. If insurance companies had to pay out hundreds of billions of dollars each year, they would go out of business. Another thing that preexisting conditions do, is it can keep your costs lower. If we did away with preexisting conditions, insurance companies would charge premiums so high, that no one could afford them. --Which, in my opinion, is EXACTLY what Obama wants. If no one can have insurance through the private sector, then they must turn to the Government.

The fact of the matter is, it is illegal ALREADY in this country for a health provider to deny treatment based on one's ability or inability to pay. Why do we need to take it further? This system of national health care will only result in poorer health care service and the creation of more Government drones in society. Can you name one Government run agency/program/system that is ran efficiently? They don't exist!

If national health care is available, I wouldn't take it. I would hope that true Conservatives wouldn't either. Be a Patrick Henry: Give me Liberty or Give me Death!