OLM on Healthcare Reform

H.R. 3200

    Bi-partisan politics continue to obscure the facts of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200. It’s hard enough to wade through the 1017 page document and decipher the language of proposed legislation. Why must any debate contain distortions of the facts?
    The following is the purpose of the bill, directly copied:

     (a) Purpose.—

The Good!

The Bad!

   Too many details of this plan are unknown. A “Commissioner” will be appointed to conduct studies on how the plan will impact individuals and businesses and how to best structure many aspects of the plan. This seems a bit backwards to us: to pass a law then figure how it negatively impacts people and how to structure it.
   We are all for a national health plan that covers everyone for accidents and necessary medical care, but this plan - which retains private health insurance as an option forces uninsured citizens to purchase health insurance out of pocket, and forces employers to meet particular standards - appears much too convoluted and cumbersome. No doubt a large part of the budget will be spent on enforcing compliance rather than on health care.
   Health insurance companies make a lot of profit. Drug companies’ profits are obscene. If we were to eliminate health insurance all together and cap drug company profits, could we not create an excellent national health service that is paid for through taxes, like the Canadian system?  
   To call H.R. 3200 “health care reform” is really a misnomer. We should be calling it the

• We would stop GMOs from being planted until or if they are truly deemed safe for consumption by non-biased third party research.
• We would clean up our vaccinations and stop over-vaccinating our children.
• We would reform the FDA, the USDA, and the FTC, and stop allowing big business to run this country.
• We would outlaw industrialized factory farming of animals and refuse to butcher unhealthy animals for consumption.
• We would clean up our act! We would feed farm animals the proper foods and provide proper habitats.
• We would save farmland, employ organic farming, and stop the use of pesticides and herbicides.
• We would grow nutrient dense food in nutrient dense soil.
• We would end senseless subsidies.
• We would end big business monopoly of our food supply.
• We would stop claiming homogenized, pasteurized, irradiated dead food is “safer.”
• We would teach true health education, which would include the importance of eating raw fresh fruits and vegetables, of avoiding toxins such as pesticides and herbicides, and the means to prevent disease, and stop blaming genetics.
• We would stop poisoning people through soaps, shampoos, and cleaning supplies.

• We would stop giving people unnecessary drugs.

   Personally, we like the idea of emergency and basic healthcare for all; we just don’t like health insurance. We spend our money on true prevention and alternative health care, neither of which is likely to be covered by this plan, so we aren’t really keen on being forced to pay for traditional medical treatment we won’t use unless we suffer a serious injury.
   Well-placed lies followed by endless rhetoric have eclipsed honest debate on these issues. Rest assured this plan does not include a death panel or euthanasia for seniors. You won’t go to jail for not paying for health insurance (you’ll be taxed, instead). Those ridiculous claims are the result of our political system, run by elected leaders who regularly prove to us that they have lost all sense of fair play or belief in ethics and the media, which promote lies and sensationalism.
   Maybe America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 will do more good than harm, but we wish health reform had more to do with health and less to do with disease management.