First, it isn't just conservatives or Republicans. You're right that it isn't about political idealogy, so that must be why forty percent of dems and sixty-two percent of independents also oppose this bill.
Second, the very fact that we need Health Care reform in the first place is proof that the Federal Government cannot, nor was it ever meant to manage such things in the first place. Social Security, Medicare, Medicade... All those systems are BROKEN. They are all but bankrupt, and the problem comes when politicians, having inserted themselves into health care for the past forty years, decide they wish to insert themselves into it even more, and what you're going to find is that the system proposed by HR3200 will fail just as spectacularly as these other systems, for a number of reasons. If you've actually read the bill yourself, you'll see that there are at least seven separate problems on pages 16-52 alone!
Here are just some samples of the things I've found-
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure. In addition, the same subsection states that Health Commisioner appointed under this act will see to it that there are no incentives on the books for small or mid-sized businesses to self ensure. Shouldn't we be making it easier for them to do so if they can afford it?
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!! You can only get so much "care" per year, this being about 5,000-10,000$ per year.
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get! It's not up to you, or your doctor to decide what you need, but up to Uncle Sam!
Page 35 of the HC bill - Even AFTER the govt committee decides what kind of care you get, the so-called "Health Choices Commissioner" gets to decide whether it's appropriate! Not you, the patient who is affected, but yet another bureaucrat!
So what does this bill do? Precisely contrary to what the Founding Fathers intended, it grows government and weakens the individual. That's not ideological. It's simple historical understanding, combined with the facts of what happens when too much power goes to too few.
You want to who want to compare us to nations like Sweden, Japan, Germany, etc...
Per capita assessment DOES NOT effectively address the COMBINATION of circumstances, and thus, is NOT an accurate measure of effectiveness. It doesn't address the simple fact that geographic distance to care centers will effect the cost of care per person. The more distance to cover, the more expensive it is......its an incredibly simple economic concept that a pure "per capita" assessment simply tosses by the wayside because it is an inconvenient detail to worry about, and thus, there is NO leveling of the playing field going on.
I fully support the CONCEPT of health care reforms, and seeing to it the people are properly cared for. But I absolutely MUST reject a pressured mad dash for it, rooted in "if Sweden can do it, why cant' we?" thought. this is something that will drastically effect the welfare of every last citizen in the country, be it though health care, or increased tax burden, or the long term financial stability of the country.....and it ABSOLUTELY MUST be done with a "long view" outlook, and NOT by comparing us to other countries, that for various reasons, aren't' truly comparable to what we are dealing with.
I'm going to re-iterate that NO OTHER COUNTRY in the world faces covering a population of our size, over the same geographic spread. Sweden has a geographic spread of around 175k sq miles, and less than 10 million in population. Germany covers about 138k sq miles, an 80 million-ish. Japan has 128 million people, but in only 145k sq miles....the US, on the other hand, has 308 million people.
Source(s):