There is a lot of talk and debate about the proposed healthcare issue. What most people are not asking is "can it be Constitutional?" I am sorry, but I don't think so. Some people say that this is what the "general welfare" clause means. If you read some of the writings and documents of the founding fathers, you will see that this is not the case. Government money is not to be used for "welfare" as is understood today.
I acknowledge the fact that there are hundreds of millions more people in America than there were back then. Life is more complex and medical science is far more complex then placing leeches on people to drain their blood.
When conservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalists complain, the progressives say "what is YOUR solution?" The problem is that this administration won't allow anyone to dissent. They drown out our voices. They want this pushed through before everyone can read it. Well, many of us have read it. I will not debate the pros and cons of this bill. I simply believe the Government has no right in health care. Look at Medicare. It is going broke. They should get out of healthcare!
Well...... what do you propose? To start with, some of the following items should be discussed openly over as long a time is necessary:
1) Tort reform. One of the biggest costs of practicing medicine. It's not being mentioned.
2) Let insurance companies sell across State lines to create more competition and larger pools of insured.
3) Let Doctors spend more times in Free Clinics as part of their training and community service.
4) How about 20 year medical insurance plans, just like life insurance.
5) Car insurance charges higher premiums for drivers at risk, Why not higher health premiums for people who are obese or those that smoke?
6) How anout allowing more alternative treatments? In the U.S. a doctor can't use alternative medical treatment unless he wants to lose his license or be harassed by the AMA, the FDA and big pharma!
You may not agree with any of these solutions, but they should at least be discussed. They should also allow alternative practicioners and patients to testify. Don't bring in "prejudiced" witnesses and experts.
I am sure there are many more solutions available and all of them need to be heard. We don't need people who have lived and worked in Washington for 20 or 30 years to tell us what we need. They need to visit the real world,