July 16th, 2009 • 1:22 amDueling Health Care LTEs

The St. Cloud Times published opposing health care LTEs. Follow this link to Ron Baert’s. Follow this link to Nancy Thiessen’s LTE. (In the interest of full disclosure, I serve with Ron Baert on the Benton County Republican Executive Board.) The contrasts between their LTEs perfectly illustrates the divide separating conservatives and liberals. First, here’s part of Ron Baert’s LTE:

Just to make it very clear, there is no such thing as free government services, only very expensive government services. Socialism is very inefficient and costly. So where does the government get the money to provide for this “free” health service? First, there is the direct tax taken out of our paycheck and/or could result in a value-added tax “national sales tax” as other countries employ. Another way is to add it to the debt, which results in higher inflation and I would expect it would be all three.

The notion that there’s such a thing as a deficit-neutral health care reform is foolish. It’s impossible to accomplish.

Here’s more of Ron’s analysis:

Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute in California, is the author of “The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide.” She said in an interview with National Review Online: Of the almost 46 million Americans counted as uninsured by the U.S. Census Bureau, 14 million of them are eligible for existing government programs but have not signed up.

Another 17 million of them are earning more than $50,000 a year, but do not buy insurance because they feel it is too expensive. Two-thirds are young people between 18 and 31 who consider themselves “invincible.” They would buy insurance if it were cheaper and available to cover catastrophes, which is why one has insurance.

This demographic breakdown gives us a clearer understanding of the problems that need fixing.

Next, let’s look at Ms. Thiessen’s LTE:

Anyone who doesn’t want national health care just hasn’t gone without it yet. Wait until it happens to them or someone they love, or wait until the small hospitals close their doors, then maybe people will wake up.

We can try to fix this system before it collapses or we will all be without it. Why do people think that the government will not be a good handler of the system and large companies would be? Isn’t that what we have now?

Greed is rampant in the system. Could it get much worse? We should feel lucky that we have a government that cares about its people enough to take on such a burden. It is always amazing to me that people who claim to be “Christian” seem to be the most selfish. Aren’t we always supposed to be watching out for the poor and the meek? I think that’s what Jesus would say.

Talk about an irrational, hyperventilating analysis of our current situation. The last I heard, 91 percent of Minnesotans are currently insured. Of those that are without insurance, 59 percent were eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health care. To be fair, those numbers likely have changed with Gov. Pawlenty’s unallotments, though I don’t think they’ve changed dramatically.

If you total that up, that means 97 percent of all Minnesotans either have health insurance or are eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Furthermore, Minnesota has ranked either as the healthiest or second healthiest state.

QUESTION: Does that information sound like a system on the verge of collapse?

Let’s give Ms. Thiessen the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that she’s referring to conditions elsehwere in the United States. If such conditions exist somewhere in the United States, perhaps Ms. Thiessen could tell us where in the United States these dramatic conditions exist.

Where are rural hospitals closing? Where is our health care system on the verge of collapse? I wish Ms. Thiessen would tell us so we could focus our attention on those places most in need of help.

In fact, that’s a pretty good idea for reforming our health care system. Shouldn’t we focus on the parts of the health insurance system that need reforming? Shouldn’t we leave alone the parts of the health care/health insurance system that are working well?

Let’s take it a step further. Shouldn’t we think this through and first identify the things that aren’t working well? Similarly, shouldn’t wedo an inventory of the things that need the most attention? Finally, shouldn’t we acknowledge the fact that only then can we find the best remedies for what’s wrong?

It’s impossible to fix things when one side makes irrational and unsubstantiated statements. Unfortunately, the side that’s making the irrational and unsubstantiated statements is the majority party.

Unless and until the Democrats screw their heads on straight, meaningful health care reform is impossible. Hopefully, that’ll change after the 2010 elections. Hopefully by then the American people will see that the U.S. House and Senate are run by irrational Democrats.

Until something changes, let’s just be thankful that conservatives keep making thoughtful, persuasive arguments against the Democrats’ special interest-driven plans.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Post Comments RSS Feed Post Comments RSSTrackBack URI 1 Response

  1. [...] Dueling Health Care LTEs [...]

    Pingback by Health Care, Socialized Obamacare! And Whatever! « Maddmedic • 16Jul2009 @ 10:19 am





Categories