3. To those who claim that,
"universal health-care should be a
guaranteed right for every American...."
Since our Constitution only guarantees
rights to take actions (i.e. the right to
pursue happiness, the right to free speech,
the right to self defense, the right to
equal protection under the law, etc…) on
what basis does our Constitution guarantee
health-care insurance? Are you claiming that
health-care insurance is an enumerated
unalienable "right" in our
Constitution? If it is then isn't car
insurance, life insurance, and other forms
of insurance also a "right" to which
all Americans are entitled?
4.
To those who claim that "too many
Americans don't have health-care and hence
there is a need for universal
health-care...." First, by law no one
residing in the United States -- legal or
illegal -- can be denied treatment at any
emergency room in America. Secondly of the
45 million uninsured Americans, according to
the US Census Bureau, 37% live in households
earning greater than $50,000 per year, 19%
have incomes greater than $75,000 per year,
20% are not US citizens (aka
"undocumented workers" or "potential
Democrat voters"), and 33% are eligible
for government programs but are not
enrolled. Should tax-paying U.S. citizens
be forced by the government to subsidize
health-care insurance for 12-20 million
illegal aliens who don't have coverage? And
what about the 17 million Americans who make
over $50,000 a year who can afford insurance
but choose not to buy it? Don't they have
this right? And why should the government
force them to have health insurance if they
chose to pay out of pocket? Wouldn't it make
more sense to implement market based reforms
-- to reduce the cost of health-care and
increase the affordability and availability
-- such as equalizing the tax treatment for
businesses and individuals, increasing the
availability of tax-free health savings
accounts, nationalizing the 50-state
insurance market, reducing expensive and
onerous government insurance mandates,
limiting Medicare and Medicaid for those at
or below the poverty line, and ending
"guaranteed issue" laws that enable
people to put off purchasing insurance until
they need it?
5.
To those at the
New York
Times, which wrote "the United
States is a laggard not a leader in
providing good medical care verses other
countries...." The World Health
Organization and Commonwealth Fund Studies
on which the Times based its
statement judged a country's overall quality
of health-care based on life expectancy. But
is this really a fair basis for comparison
given the fact that we have a significantly
higher number of fatal car accidents, a
higher homicide rate, and a higher obesity
rate (that have nothing to do with the
quality of our health-care) than other
countries such as the U.K. and Canada?
When these things are taken into account the
U.S. actually has a higher life expectancy
rate than nearly every industrialized nation
in the world. People come from all over the
world to receive virtually every type of
high-technology medical procedure and
advanced drug therapy that they cannot
obtain in their own country. If we are a
"laggard," then why are people from all
over the world coming here for inferior
quality health-care?
6. To those who claim: "We need to
ensure health-care for all Americans and
need to institute a government health-care
single-payer system like they have in
Canada, France, the U.K. and Cuba so that
all Americans can receive quality affordable
health-care." Why would we want to do
that given the fact that in these countries,
patients who have "universal government"
coverage face significantly longer waiting
times, treatment times, rationing, and
inferior health-care overall? Why are
citizens from these countries flocking to
the U.S. to receive high quality life saving
treatment in virtually every area from
neurosurgery, to cardiology, to organ
transplant, to cancer treatment, to even
routine MRIs?
7.
To
those who claim:
"We
need to invest more in health-care." How
can one say this and also argue that
American health-care is inferior to other
socialist countries because we spend too
much on health-care as a percentage of GDP?
How will spending trillions of tax dollars
on health-care actually reduce costs,
empirically speaking? The only way that
socialist countries have been able to
"reduce" overall costs is through the
rationing of health-care. Could we
"reduce costs" without rationing? How
would we do that? Where has it ever been
done?
8. To those who say: "We need to
roll back 'the Bush tax cuts for the rich'
and 'invest' that money on health-care for
the poor." Why can't we lower taxes
across the board and institute competitive
affordable health-care simultaneously? How
would increasing taxes on the most
productive workers (the "rich") in
America enable more "poor" Americans
to obtain health-care? Raising taxes on
those making more than $200,000 (80% are
small businesses who pay taxes at the
individual rate) will leave many
businesses with less money to expand and
hire more workers. How will this help make
insurance for the "poor" more
affordable? Also, if having more money
available to the government to "invest"
in a national single-payer health-care plan
is the goal, wouldn't it be preferable to
actually reduce tax rates across the board
since every time taxes have been reduced
over the last century tax receipts to the
treasury have increased significantly?
9.
To those who say:
"Health-Care
Savings Accounts (HSAs) will only benefit
the rich and will result in higher costs to
those who wish to remain in the traditional
program which will hurt the elderly and the
poor." HSAs have enabled small
businesses to realize an average savings of
about forty percent on health-insurance
premiums according to the Center for Health
Transformation. What specific data shows
that HSAs only benefit the "rich" and
hurt the "poor?"
10. To those who say "the vaccine
shortages in America prove that government
has to be in control of health-care to
ensure universal vaccinations -- that
profits should not come before health for
the children and the elderly...." In
1993 Congress passed Mrs. Clinton's
"Vaccines for Children" program which
gave the federal government the power to
negotiate prices exclusively with drug
companies to ensure universal vaccinations.
The government agreed to purchase sixty
percent of the national pediatric vaccine
supply (Clinton pushed for 100%) at a
forced discount of about 50% to be delivered
to doctors, the poor, and the uninsured even
though vaccines are already free for the
needy through programs such as Medicaid and
S-CHIP. Since government bureaucrats
instead of doctors became the direct
purchaser of vaccines and dictating prices
below costs, many manufacturers were forced
out of business (thirty years ago
twenty-five companies produced vaccines.
Today there are only five). Given that
history, how will expanding government
control make vaccines more abundant and
affordable? Isn't the lesson here that
government mandated price-controls limit
competition which leads to rationing and
shortages?
11. Mrs. Clinton, under your universal
health-care proposal people would
automatically be enrolled in a
government-run "health alliance."
Your plan specifically states: "It is the
obligation of every eligible individual to
enroll in a health plan. Anyone who does not
meet the established deadline for enrollment
automatically is enrolled in a health plan
when he or she seeks medical care. Regional
alliances assign patients who do not seek
enrollment to a health plan; they
automatically assign any newborn infant who
is not enrolled through his or her parents
to a plan." Once you are enrolled,
"health-providing institutions... would send
all patients through medical 'gatekeepers,'
who would decide what care people really
need." Can you please specify who these
"gatekeepers" will be and what
specific criteria they will use to determine
what type of care "people really need?"
Isn't the type of care a patient needs a
decision best made by the patient and his
physician?
12. To those who claim that a
"single-payer system will save money because
people will seek care earlier when it is
easier and more affordable to treat
diseases...." While it is true that we
could significantly reduce health-care costs
overall by focusing more on earlier state
preventative care instead of advanced stage
treatments and therapies, what would make
one think that people would have easier
access to health-care in a single-payer
government run health-care system
given the excessive long waits and
difficulties getting appointments in the
U.K., Canada, France, and Australia? Is
there one example where a single-payer
system actually saves money and increases
access simultaneously?
