Commentary by Hampton Marsh | NEWSL
Ok, yep…I just reviewed the U.S. Constitution and NOWHERE did I find anything even close to referencing the U.S. Government providing a healthcare program for its people.
I guess that means those of us who support and defend the Constitution think that people should just be uninsured and die in the streets…that we don’t care about those in need? Actually neither of those statements are true.
I actually agree with the writer’s statement when he says: “If the presidential candidates do not engage the nation in debating the future of health care, it still matters.” You’re right, it does still matter! But it shouldn’t matter to a voter, because a federally elected official has no business being in the business of healthcare…unless of course it is in the continued care of its service members after a dedicated career serving this nation.
The writer does speak some truth again in another statement, “Hillary Clinton would stay the course” … “and a Republican who seems to have some core beliefs about health care, but lacks a coherent plan.” What I see here is the true essence of what is the difference between a Progressive and a Conservative. Does Trump have a limited mindset on everything? No. Will he shift gears later after a repeal and replace the program with something else? Maybe (though I hope not).
But no matter the outcome, sometimes not having a plan is the strategic plan.
Being a conservative sometimes means you strategically accept a “gap” in policy because you recognize the need, but also recognize your limitations in power.
Clinton does neither! If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will not only keep the power Obama has captured from the American people, she will continue to grasp for more until she is physically stopped through one way or another…
Oops! Did I just do what Trump did yesterday when he referenced the historical reasoning for the Second Amendment? To be a passive deterrent to Big Government overreach and domestic tyranny. Well, maybe I did if you are a Progressive reading this and believe that government should be the end all to everything and any entity attempting to limit their power is a threat and therefore should be silenced, dealt with, or eliminated. Either way, that’s your problem. This is how I feel, so #SUCKITLIBERAL!
I will close by making one (or a few) more comment(s) about something this author states (specifically about what is underlined below), because it is extremely important:
“Even if you’re healthy, deeper national debt affects the economy and in some way everyone’s standard of living, especially the next generation. If the government has to spend more on health care, it comes at the expense of more debt, cuts in something else or higher taxes,” says the writer of the below article.
Here is what he is saying…we will have greater national debt and it does affect the economy in a negative way which will cause EVERYONE to adjust their standard of living (bravo you have mastered the concepts of basic economics!). The author has recognized that this program will affect the next generation and WHEN (not If as the author suggests) the national debt will increase and therefore decrease YOUR standard of living even further. Unfortunately, the Progressive will tell you this is for the common good and to essentially suck it up. Hate to break it to you liberals, that’s Communism. Government chosen, Government run systems to do what THEY think is in your best interest at the expense of your Pursuit of Happiness (because you essentially forfeiting your standard of living automatically takes away your ability to attain what we use to call the ‘American Dream’… wait, what? Maybe this system isn’t the best ‘Course of Action.’
Let’s deal with the root problem here. Yes, healthcare is important but needs to be run by private businesses in the free-market economy. This will increase the requirement to run a program with a well thought out and modeled business plan and naturally decrease the prices to remain competitive in the open and free market (yes, this makes healthcare more affordable when there is increased competition and less government regulations and ‘red tape’). Why? Because someone’s personal money is involved and thus holds them accountable…if someone doesn’t do it that way, it will fail. The root problem, as this author suggests, isn’t “postponing hard choices” about the trajectory of government healthcare, the problem is finding a leader who recognizes the limitations of his own power and forces himself to self-limit him and the government given power by the people, for the people.
Like this piece? Come back!
Thought this was a crazy rant by some wack job? Guess what, we DON’T care! Go have a cafe latte moccachino at your favorite Starbucks with your favorite liberal friends.
Follow Hampton on Twitter: @
Original article below:
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — THE ISSUE: About 9 in 10 Americans now have health insurance, more than at any time in history. But progress is incomplete, and the future far from certain. Millions remain uninsured. Quality is still uneven. Costs are high and trending up again. Medicare’s insolvency is two years closer, now projected in 2028. Every family has a stake.
WHERE THEY STAND
Hillary Clinton would stay the course, making adjustments as needed to major government health insurance programs. She’d build on President Barack Obama’s health care law, with one exception — a tax on generous coverage that she’d repeal. Medicare would get new legal powers to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharma companies. Clinton would also offer some relief from rising out-of-pocket costs, like deductibles and copayments. Donald Trump would repeal “Obamacare.” But a recent study found his plan would make 18 million people uninsured. Stay tuned, because Trump has also said he doesn’t want people “dying on the street.” Similar to Clinton, he has promised not to cut Medicare. He agrees Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices, unusual for a Republican. Trump’s campaign has said he may revisit major health care programs once in the White House.
WHY IT MATTERS
Patients from all over the world come to America for treatment. U.S. research keeps expanding humanity’s ability to confront disease. But the U.S. still spends far more than any advanced country, and its people are not much healthier.
Obama’s progress reducing the number of uninsured may be reaching its limits. Premiums are expected to rise sharply in many communities for people covered by his namesake law, raising concerns about the future.
The health care overhaul did not solve the nation’s longstanding problem with costs. Total health spending is picking up again, underscoring that the system is financially unsustainable over the long run. Employers keep shifting costs to workers and their families.
No one can be denied coverage anymore because of a pre-existing condition, but high costs are still a barrier to access for…
Get the rest of this article here
Get more of these issues presented by The Associated Press here