“I do not want to be thrown in to Public” Cause and Effect
Now I have been dying to get this diary completed before the single payer system is instituted in the United States. Yes, I know that the administration keeps talking about patient choice, but as the diaries point out lately that this can not be farther from the truth.
Now, before I move on to the diary I had formulated about month ago, I would like to address the new argument that I have been hearing lately from the left. The left most recently has asserted that the system instituted by Massechussets is an excellent example of how to make sure that everyone is insured. Now, on the single state level this may be fine; however, its application to the Federal level is unknown. The argument that the left uses is that everyone is required to own automobile insurance before they are allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Keep in mind that automobile insurance is applied on the State level and not the Federal level.
Now straight to the point, automobile insurance is required for liability reasons. That is, to pay the expenses of you, your passengers and the other vehicles passengers in the event you are found at fault in accident. Did you get that, automobile insurance is to protect you against financial liability for accidents that can be directly attributable to your negligance or as deemed ‘no fault” which means your collision coverage becomes appicable. Now, you must keep in mind that collision insurance comes with its own premium and directly applies to the event in which you get into an accident that is a case of “no fault” or in the event that you get in accident with a deer or moose, God forbid. How does the use of the argument of automobile insurance relate to health insurance? It doesn’t. This argument is completely without merit since health is directly applicable to you and it does not involve the health of other people as a result of you health. Sounds stupid doesn’t it? I could go on with the fact that driving an automobile is not a right, not to mention that it requires a license from the State of residence to operate. Now to equate this to health insurance, it would require me to issue a license for your health that is given to you by the State and not the Federal Government. Do you need a license for your health? Of course not, it is part of your being and is considered private property by some in the Supreme Court.
Without further adieu, I move on to my original piece. Of course this is incomplete and I am sure some will provide comment to enhance my original though. So, here you go…
There has been much talk lately about how Universal Heatlh Care should be the course of action that the U.S. Government takes up in the coming years. Shoot, in the coming years? If the last 50 days or so are any example, we will have this passed in the next 25 days. So, my question is, what exactly are the repercussions of a move which will eventually lead to a Public Healthcare System (PHS) that will affect everyone of the 300 million plus people in this country? Well, I want to examine this subject with my friends here at RedState to put together something of a brainstorming session on the effects of a Universal PHS.
First of all, I would like to examine some of our other institutions that are so called Public. As Ron White says, “I was thrown out into “Public””. Let us imagine our choices on TV for one, we have private corporations that provide television programming in both the broadcast and cable systems, and we have a choice of Public type broadcast usually referred to as the Public Broadcasing Service (PBS) which is of course provided by your cable company as well.
What is the connection here, DONTREADONME, PBS, PHS? The answer my friends is not as straight forward as you might think. PHS is a universal type health care system modeled after the single payer system that is used by the British and the Canadians, while PBS is not a single payer system. 15-25% of the funding to PBS comes from the U.S. Government. Everything you ever wanted to know about the PBS can be found at the PBS website here http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/. For those of you Fox watchers, I will give you the brief, PBS 356 stations that reaches about 65 million people with its eductational and sometimes entertaining programming provided to it by the American Public Television, NETA and independent producers. Its funding is largely obtained through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which is a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE). If anyone thinks they have seen that name before, you have, they were once the mortgage giants Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Banking System and Freddie Mac. You know, the sub-prime mortgage giants that have single handedly brought down the economy with the help of energy prices, Democratic Party, and Obama not to mention the unscrupulous traders, credit swappers, mortgage companies and greedy homeowners (flip this house, flipped the economy).
I have been giving this subject some thought now for about the last 20 days. Here is a flipside argument that I have been working on, keep in mind that I do not have any supporting documentation here, but where does the majority of treatments and cures for disease orginate. That is, which country in the world spends the most money (including government and private corporations) on the Research and Development of new drugs and treatments.
I would imagine that country is the United States of America (USA). Now the question is, who conducts the majority of research and development in the USA on new drugs and treatment, private corporations. Now why is that? Well, we do spend money in the public sector through the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) but mainly that money goes to Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and R&D contracts with private organizations. Again, why does the Government do that with our taxpayer money. Simple, private industry works more efficiently; the Government is central planning and full of bureaucratic procedures such as statutory, regulatory and policy requirements. Private companies are structured to better commit the funds directly to R&D without the costly “diseconomy of scale” that is the Government. Let us not forget the following when it comes to private industry over Government:
When it comes to acquiring the best new equipment for R&D it is easier for the private company to use it’s own funds as part of business development; Government, in the effort to acquire new equipment specifically for its own use, requires the allocating of funds, planning of the acquisition, following regulatory, statutory and policy requirements (paperwork – NEPA, FAR. legal review, Source Selection Plan (SSP), Sole Source Justication and Apprval (J&A) if applicable etc.), releasing the Request for Proposal (RFP), selecting the source, negotiating the contract, and maintaining adherence to the contractual guidelines. Phew, that is quite the process comparing Government to private organizations. Now you can understand why the Governments technology (in this case medical) takes years and a private organization can have the Commerical Off the Shelf (COTS) product with in just the delivery time. You may now say, DONTREADONME, the military has some of the most cutting edge technology in the world. Well, the answer to why is simple, the Government usually funds private industry directly to conduct the research and development. The Government is very limited in what it can develop itself for its own use, and manufacturing the developed product is another story.
Private industry does not have all of the time in the world to research, develop, and produce a product, that is the funding is limited. Demands of efficiency and progress within short time frames are usually demanded by the corporate leaders or the shareholders. Unlike Government, the private firm has a fixed R&D budget usually derived from either the selling of stock, borrowing or the use of profit. The Government and its workers, including the advocates in Congress and the Executive Branch, are never under the impression that the supply of money will run out; however, much to their dismay Government revenue is not infinite.
Finally, what disturbs me even more than the factors I listed above about Goverment taking over the Health Care system, is the loss of privacy. Let us not forget the Porkulus Bill that alloted funding to develop a database system through which doctors would have to report their treatment processes for you to a centralized location. When we are on this train called PHS, their will be no such thing as doctor patient confidentiality and Government will have complete access to all of your personnal medical information. Is this what the country wants? I know many of you here do not want this, and most certainly I will fight this effort to move to a single payer system in the style of Canada and Great Britian tooth and nail.
“Don’t Tread On Me”