11.06
Reading this piece in the Wall St. Journal this morning underscores a prevalent misunderstanding that needs addressing. I’ve said this in various ways before many times in this blog. And that is, the ignorance shown by politicians about seemingly basic matters of economics isn’t ignorance at all. It’s intentional deceit. Understanding this fact is critical, not only to finding the truth in political matters, but also to just keeping your sanity when reading the news. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) shows us the fallacy in his closing statement:
But rather than consider these common sense proposals, congressional Democrats are insisting we push through a new trillion-dollar government controlled scheme.
Proponents of ObamaCare can’t cite one shred of evidence that giving politicians and Washington bureaucrats more power and control will produce better quality health care or lower costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it has had no time to study exactly how much the bill will increase premiums for average Americans—something it routinely does for health-care legislation that is moving through Congress.
Does anyone believe the billions in new taxes as well as hundreds of pages of new rules and regulations being proposed will lower the cost of health care in America? But not knowing how much this will harm families didn’t stop Congress from advancing one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation our nation has ever seen. That’s scary and irresponsible.
Why aren’t we trying, or even debating, these no-cost solutions that insert choice into the health-care reform equation? Before Congress acts and passes an expensive, untested, new health-care system, the American people need to be heard.
Why aren’t they trying no-cost solutions? I’m sorry, but that’s just the worst kind of naivety. There is one simple reason that none of what’s going through congress ever makes any financial sense at all. Because sound economic decisions don’t benefit congressmen. Again, Mr. Shadegg:
The solution: Allow American families to purchase health coverage across state lines. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 12 million more Americans would be able to buy coverage if this simple solution were enacted into law.
Why doesn’t congress support such an obviously good idea that won’t cost taxpayers a dime? Again, you have to think like a politician on these things. How does crushing state insurance monopolies get more money into Nancy Pelosi’s re-election campaign fund? It doesn’t. How would doing that keep big insurance in the tank for more campaign contributions? It wouldn’t. That’s all that matters. Politicians think of themselves and their gravytrain jobs first. Everything else is subservient to that one goal.
And, if you are of the Rush Limbaugh mindset that all of this is somehow aimed at damaging big corporations then you’re kidding yourself. Sure, the anti-big insurance rhetoric is there from folks like Pelosi and Schumer, but that’s all for show. The truth is that politicians must keep big business on board with them. Exhibit A. is the very same Rep. Shadegg’s disclosure that Pelosi inserted language into the house healthcare bill that grant’s legal immunity to insurance companies to protect them from any legal action in the case of death or injury resulting from decisions made by the company. In other words, you can sue the doctor, but not the insurance company that mandated what the doctor did. Does that sound like hostility to big business to you?
The sooner you come to grips with the fact that everything done in government is a complete fabrication, disguised to throw you off the real scent of what’s going on, the sooner you’ll see that you have no true “representative” in congress. The only ones they represent are themselves.
No Comment.
Add Your Comment