What happened to Prudence and Transparency?

Well, it has happened again. Congress is using stimulus money to fund pet projects. Today an article by the Associated Press pointed to several projects that had been a much lower priority on the list of border upgrades. The process is secretive and therefore not "transparent" as Obama suggested it would be. I am tired of being treated like this by my government. This is not government of the people for the people. This is government by those who are rich enough to fund a campaign for their pet projects. Originally, the Founding Fathers had intended to have a balance in government that would limit amounts spent balanced with need. A question that needed to be answered in this equation was "Can we afford it?" Another question was "What will the program for which money will be spent do to the rights and individual freedom of the people?" (These two questions come from Leon Skousen's book The 5000 Year Leap) I see nothing like this happening. Our government can't afford to do anything with this trillion dollar budget deficit - thanks to Obama. I cannot believe that our leaders think that they can just strap the next generation of Americans with our debt because they refuse to act prudently.

France Can't Afford National Health Care

Well what do you know--France can't afford its nationalized health care! I am reading an article in today's Wall Street Journal that explains how the French cannot afford their universal health care. They are going in the hole each successive year and forecast that it will continue this way. Part of the reason that the French can't pay for their public health insurance is from the aging population and SOARING health care costs.  France recently decided to institute co-pays to try to help cover the costs. They also tried to cut services, especially where there are less efficient services. Guess what happened? Patients, doctors and nurses all complained that health care is being rationed. Does anyone remember that this is one of President Obama's pledges--to not ration health care? The Wall Street Journal article (David Gauthier-Villars) states "The French system's fragile solvency shows how tough it is to provide universal coverage while controlling costs, the professed twin goals of President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul.

"Financial pain has long dogged the French plan.  As in the U.S., demand for care is growing faster than the economy as people take better care of themselves and  new treatments become available."

I'm just saying, this universal healthcare thing is looking more desirable all the time.  

Paying for Socialized Health Care

I am very concerned about socialized health care on two different fronts.

First of all, I am concerned about paying for a socialized health care system and the ramifications of trying to pay for it. I am not at all sure that the government has the money to pay for a socialized medical system. Today, Associated Press writer Tom Raum wrote an article that stated many sources are concerned about paying for health care and they are not seeing that the numbers add up to pay for the system. The Congressional Budget Office is just one of those who are concerned that paying for this system would put us another trillion dollars in debt over the next ten years.

This concern of mine over paying for a health care plan for all Americans leads to my second concern. If this plan cannot be funded properly, will health care suffer? What will be cut out so that the administration can pay for socialized health care and say that they won?

An organization called Citizens Against Government Waste cautions that "the real goal of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation is to force all Americans into a one-size-fits-all, government-run and rationed healthcare system, look no further than page 16 of the House bill. Under "Limitation On New Enrollment," the bill states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

In other words, once the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare regime takes effect, you can keep your existing plan, but if your employer stops offering healthcare coverage or if you are privately insured and your insurer cancels your coverage, you are no longer free to buy new coverage from a private insurance company on the open market."

Is anyone aware of this small bit included in the bill? Are most Americans willing to let this happen?  I am not!  I have e-mailed my congressmen to let them know of my disapproval of the healthcare bill.  I keep hearing words like "all people are entitled to healthcare coverage."  Our founding fathers did not feel like we were "entitled" to anything like that. That is why they didn't provide for that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Keep that in mind.