In the world of “two-party” politics people are often presented only two options on any given issue. You either support “health care reform” or you oppose it. There is NO other option, there is no debate on what type of reform; except for the “reform” being proposed, which will only put more government control and regulation on a system that is already heavily regulated, to begin with. And, of course with all things two-party politics, you either support it, or you don’t, there is no room at the table for alternative views.
However, I will give an alternate view anyways, and hope someone at the table listens.
REAL health care reform would involve:
Allowing doctors and hospitals to more freely set prices, instead of requiring them to set prices in accordance to standards established by the government thanks in part to Medicare.
Abolishing the FDA and DEA. This would allow pharmaceutical companies to lower prices by removing expensive to meet regulations, and would also open the market to “alternative medicine”. Not least of which would be the legal use of cannabis as a “legitimate” medical treatment for cancer, glaucoma, arthritis, light depression, anorexia and a few other medical conditions. Aside from cannabis, there are many other “alternative” medicines that would be legal and/or more widely available, it would no longer be ILLEGAL to say (when selling the product) that Vitamin B-17, Aloe Vera and Hemp Oil can CURE CANCER. Arrests of people using these alternative treatments would no longer be treated as criminals, because they would no longer be breaking any law.
Allowing insurance companies to compete with one another regardless of the State in which they happen to be located. This increased competition would by its very nature decrease costs allowing consumers to spend less on medical costs.
Last and certainly not least, REAL health care reform would require the government to completely get out of the “health care business”. There is no legitimate Constitutional Authority for the justification of federal intervention into the health care industry.
President Obama recently said the “public option” would be like the Post Office; I can only guess that he means it would run a $7 billion per year deficit. Maybe he means the “public option” would be what people use when the private competitors are barred from performing certain services (i.e. Postal monopoly on first class mail). Or, maybe, he means you would stand in line for a long time for an over-priced product being performed by over-paid governments employees. No matter what he means by his statement, the proposal for “reform” is not reform at all.