Health Care
Before the Federal Government got heavily into health care in the mid-sixties, medical care was cheap and affordable for almost everyone. Doctors even commonly made house calls. We took what was a very minor problem for very few people and turned it into a major problem for everyone.
The pattern seems to be that the Federal Government makes a problem so bad that the only solution people can see is for the government to take it all over.
The "Affordable Care Act" was the socialist approach to health care, and all it will do over the long haul is make a bad situation even worse by putting the federal government between people and their doctors; this will only lead to a rationing of care, all sorts of inefficiencies and waste, and a declining quality of medical care for everyone.
We were told over and over by the President and his supporters that if we passed his healthcare plan, the average family would save about $2500 a year. Instead, for the great majority, premiums and other costs have gone way up.
The law was written in a way that gave big insurance companies a major windfall so they would not oppose the bill.
Dr. Betsy McCaughey, a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Analysis, wrote that insurance companies lobbied “furiously” for the bill because it “compels the public to buy their product and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal. The giant players – United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem and Humana - have seen their stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010.”
The sad thing is that even as good as U.S. medical care is now, it would become much better and much less expensive if we could move more in the direction of a free market for medical care instead of in the direction toward more government control and more bureaucracy.
James K. Glassman wrote in U.S. News and World Report:
“One reason health care costs have been rising so much faster than inflation for so long is that we don’t pay for health care the way we pay for everything else. We’re removed from the buying process so we have less incentive to be frugal, to shop around, or even to pass up medical care altogether when we probably don’t need it. Suppose your employer gave you ‘food insurance’ that reimbursed you for all your groceries. Would you search out bargains in hamburger, or simply grab the best steaks without looking at the price? Sensible insurance should shield you from catastrophes but not routine wear and tear (you expect your homeowner’s insurance to protect you against a tornado, not a torn window screen).”
Some people have said that socialized medicine works well in Canada or in some other countries. Always these other countries have about five or ten percent of the population of the U.S., have much higher taxes, and do not have nearly the crime or illegal immigration problems that we have, so the comparisons are meaningless.
More on Health Care
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in today's Washington Post, the very prominent columnist George Will has a column about how the very limited recovery that has gone on in this country over the last few months is a jobless recovery, a term that we are hearing from many, many experts throughout the country.
WASHINGTON - Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) issued the following statement Sunday in opposition to the Senate health care bill and the accompanying reconciliation package under consideration before the House of Representatives:
“Our health care system is in need of major reform, but the bill being forced through the House today is not the answer. It puts the federal government between people and their doctors, which will only lead to a rationing of care, all sorts of inefficiencies and waste, and a declining quality of medical care for everyone.
Congressman Duncan delivered the following remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives on Saturday, March 20, 2010:
The Republican Conference has compiled a list of important numbers relevant to the Senate health bill combined with the proposed reconciliation bill.
$1.2 trillion: The total cost of the bill between 2010 and 2020 (though the real costs do not start until 2014), including $940 billion in coverage subsidies, $144.2 billion in additional mandatory spending, $70 billion in discretionary spending in the Senate bill, and $41.6 billion in unrelated education spending.
Washington, DC – Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) has introduced a resolution to designate April as National Limb Loss Awareness Month.
Rep. Duncan teamed with the Knoxville, Tennessee-based Amputee Coalition of America on the bill in an effort to bring awareness to the two-million Americans living with limb loss, a number that grows by more than 185,000 every year.
WASHINGTON – Congressman Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) issued the following statement Thursday in reaction to the President’s bipartisan health care summit earlier that day:
“I am pleased that after a year of crafting an unconstitutional, big government takeover of health care totally behind closed doors, the administration has finally reached out to both parties for ideas.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2009
WASHINGTON – Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) secured funds for several needed projects in East Tennessee Thursday when the House of Representatives passed a year-end spending bill.
The bill – called an omnibus – funds multiple agencies in one measure. It now heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
Rep. Duncan secured the following funds for his District:
Mr. Speaker, before the Federal Government got heavily into health care in the mid-sixties, medical care was cheap and affordable for almost everyone. Doctors even commonly made house calls. We took what was a very minor problem for very few people and turned it into a major problem for everyone.
Washington, DC -- Mr. Speaker, Robert Samuelson is a long-time economics columnist for The Washington Post. He is considered to be a very middle-of-the-road writer, neither liberal nor conservative.
In yesterday's Post, he wrote a column entitled, ``Public Plan Mirage.'' Mr. Samuelson wrote that the public option ``is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't.''
Washington, DC -- Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s, I went to a reception in Lebanon, Tennessee, and the doctor who delivered me came and brought my records. I asked him how much he charged back then, and he said he charged $60 for 9 months of care and the delivery if they could afford it.
Before the Federal Government got so heavily involved in medical care, medical care was cheap and affordable by almost everyone, and doctors even made house calls.