The new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.

A chief aim of the new healthcare law was to take the pressure off emergency rooms by mandating that people either have insurance coverage. The idea was that if people have insurance, they will go to a doctor rather than putting off care until they faced an emergency.

• Letter from Kay Granger on Health Care – HouseNews.net (HT: Bill Alexy)

Four major U.S. employers (AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar) are considering dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.  These companies currently offer health benefits to over 2.3 million employees. That is like cutting off health care for the entire city of Houston.

The reality of budgets, economics, sociology, incentive, and plain common sense about what would have worked were thrown to the wind in favor of futuristic visions of everyone getting the best health care available for free. It sounds good on paper and many of the people were well-meaning (though grossly misinformed).

But as with other optimistic visions of the future where all injustice is eradicated and there is no one with an advantage over another, ideas inherent within the construct of socialism (soft European-style or hard Soviet-style), this simply cannot stand up to real life where there are legitimate constraints that make the system work as it does now.

It is unfortunate this won’t work too, because now many more will be hurt as a result. That and the fact that the country is bankrupt and we just can’t afford it. But that’s another discussion for another day. Sure would be nice to just get things for free! But we live in a fallen world. That presupposition seems to be lost in these discussions though, or ignored, or disbelieved in favor of an optimistic assumption about humanity that simply doesn’t stack up against what Scripture says about our condition apart from Christ.

Theory aside, practically what does the health care legislation mean for businesses and therefore individual employees of those businesses … already? Read the article above. Now, after it’s too late, does everyone see a little clearer that this legislation is merely paving the way for single payer by raising costs to the point that the average person is forced onto the new system their setting up, which was the design of the whole thing to begin with (i.e., here is Obama on record showing his true intentions for health care; do you honestly think he ever changed his position on this from then until now)? This is very unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that any reasonable economic or business discussions concerning this were essentially thrown to the wind in favor of emotional appeals and alarmist cries against anyone who opposed this of insensitivity toward the poor and disenfranchised, which is completely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.

It is amazing to me that after just celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, we’re now implementing a similar system by fragments. Word is the next step for Democrats is to address ‘climate change’, which if this tells you anything we’ll be implementing more socialist policies. This trend had better start reversing in the next year or it may be a long time before we’re ever back to where we’ve been in the past. Praise God these things have not completely come to pass yet. But we are well on our way. Again, this is no reason for believers to fear in light of what was said in the last post. Yet at the same time, we must do our best to address what can really only be described as a creeping tyranny.

UPDATE: Must add this one from Ed Schultz … at least they’re just being candid about it now about what they want, instead of hiding behind the myth that they’re for free markets and individual freedom as the Constitution defines it.

It is a sad day … no, not about health care. It is sad to see so many, I would even venture to say a majority of fellow believers (many possibly assumed believers of the verbally violent conservative bent) controlled more by their affections and longings for a temporal, earthly kingdom that will pass away, yes, even America with all of its greatness, instead of the eternal kingdom ruled by Jesus with His might and power that will never pass away. It is sad to see fellow believers more mournful for the loss they feel of their “rights” or privileges that are gifts of grace to begin with, than upset about the tragedy of sin in their own hearts or the tragedy that a great majority of people around us will go to hell under God’s just punishment (think Jesus looking over Jerusalem and weeping). It is sad to see believers more willing to voice their outrage, anger and fear over legislation that will come and go (all the while ignoring His sovereign authority over that legislation to begin with) than voice their commitment to the Gospel and commitment to solid doctrine.

I am not without fault in these areas. I’ve learned the hard way in the not-so-distant past. This isn’t to say I didn’t struggle with these affections during this recent process even. This does not mean I don’t hold the same convictions I’ve always held. And it doesn’t mean I withhold commentary on points of conviction or withhold my involvement in the political process. If anything, we need more and improved discourse concerning all these issues and more to come. It is unfortunate public discourse has devolved into “tweet” snippets of useless rhetoric that does little to address actual issues.

Here’s the question though for believers that over-rides all of that: does politics or the worldly conservative rhetoric (or liberal, if that’s your bent) out there control your heart more than the perfect, blood-bought, blood-sealed love of Christ to you? Have we forgotten or willfully ignored the verse “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18)? This is blatant idolatry and we should be ashamed, should repent and be restored by Him who is greater than this health care legislation. Political rhetoric has captured my heart many times in the past. And it produces deadly attitudes that are against the glory of God, of course, in the name of what I think is glorifying God. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

Russell Moore from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written a very wise article speaking to these points and specifically to the point of our heart attitudes in light of what happens in our society, our government and even to us personally, specifically related to this health care legislation. Jesus Christ and His glory are vastly more important than what happens with political policy. Again, this doesn’t mean we should be uninvolved. Rather we should be more involved, seasoned with salt, exhibiting the humility of Christ in these debates, and most of all, praying for and even loving our enemies, for the sake of the Gospel, their conversions and the glory of Christ. Only a heart controlled by the grace of Christ can do this. “Apart from Me you can do nothing.” May we turn to Him that is greater than he who is in the world and may He take the seat in the throne of our hearts instead of politics.

And then, if Schiff’s assessment is true, what did Ronald Reagan have to say about socialized medicine, once enacted?

As opposed to the Democrats plans to change the health care system, that calls for more irresponsible spending (money we don’t have), more taxes, and will inevitably lower the overall quality of health care for the long-term through a muck up of bureaucracy, the GOP has released their plan which calls for less spending, not more, no new taxes, and which lowers premiums.

Interestingly, the CBO (the Congressional Budget Office, that pesky independent Congressional fact-checking agency of the government) seems to agree with those assertions and backs it up with numbers. Check it out (PDF): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf.

By the way, the latest version of the Democrats bill (last I heard) was up to $1.1 trillion in new spending. We are writing checks we can’t cash essentially, except that the Fed just has the ability to create new money, which creates a whole host of moral hazards from the top down.

Forget politics for a moment. Let us all just talk about fiscal responsibility. We are still reeling from the effects of massive shocks absorbed by our financial system. Unemployment is almost 10%. Despite what this administration tells us, we’re still in a recession. Go ask the people of California and Michigan (two “blue” states). Our national debt is spiraling out of control ($1.4 trillion now I believe). We simply cannot afford these programs the Democrats want, led by Pelosi, Reid and Obama. We are spent as a nation. We need responsible adults who can balance a budget.

We need policies and bills (whether Republican or Democrat, frankly I don’t care who does it) that reduces government spending by a large amount for the next several years to get things back in balance. Right now, as it pertains to health care, the GOP plan is the only one that does that without restructuring the entire health care system as the Democrats (led by Pelosi, Reid and Obama) want.

Think about it too. If costs are lowered, wouldn’t there be more of an incentive for those without insurance to get it, and for employers to provide for more of the costs if they are not able to at the moment? Again, key terms that are lost in this debate are incentive and fiscal responsibility. Those are two things that must be studied more.

I think this movement is just getting started. Combine the prospect (and likelihood) of more excessive taxes and government control on the unemployed and already burdened, and you get a large group of ticked off people. Are these the roots of a revolution if things don’t start reversing? I don’t know, depends on what happens in the next year or two from now with legislation, the economy and next years’ elections. If things get worse as some economists are predicting (who rightly predicted last years’ crisis), the numbers could grow significantly.

As Gerald Celente said in predicting this trend earlier this year, “When people lose everything and they have nothing to lose, they lose it.” Hopefully that will not happen. So far, it is a non-violent movement. But if people get pressed far enough, anything is possible. I’m not saying I condone such a thing if it turned to that. I would decline to participate. I’m just pointing out the possibility.

Most Republican politicians don’t seem to have the fight in them that many of these protesters do. So could a third party, a truly conservative group of honest politicians get elected? It would be nice, but as one political commentator said recently on a show I was listening to, we need to first get competent politicians elected who know how the machine of economics and politics works.

Just check out the sea of people in this video, it’s really quite amazing:

Interesting quotes by Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President under the Socialist Party ticket, one of which is mentioned in the audio above:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” – Norman Thomas, 1927

“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” – Norman Thomas

This post will undoubtedly be met with a complete misunderstanding of what these solutions would actually do for those who cannot currently get health insurance (namely because of costs, resulting ultimately from government meddling, which has had a domino effect in the private sector). In particular, many will consider the proposal below of “[eliminating] all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy,” as a flagrant attack on the poor, sick and disenfranchised, when in reality, it will actually have the opposite effect of what might be expected. To many, such a proposal seems counter-intuitive, but the incentive created for the poor will be that costs are lowered, making it affordable for them.

I just wanted to preface the intent here, since some seem intent on framing such a proposal as “evil conservatism.” Such an assumption by some, to me at least, shows a great deal of intellectual dishonesty in not dealing with the argument proposed here. Letting the free market work, and getting the quasi-Marxism out of the mix, will have drastic effects on getting better healthcare coverage for all, including the poor and sick. If you disagree, fine. But don’t label such an idea as evil when clearly the goal is making healthcare available and more affordable for everyone.

The solution to our health care woes is not to put more regulations or government control over this sector of our economy or to provide a public option which will stifle competition and create less incentive in the market. The real solution is to free it from the bureaucratic and government constraints, getting rid of the subsidies and red tape. This will inevitably lower prices, which will create the incentive for many more people to purchase insurance at a reasonable price that cannot currently.

The solution is not more government (in contradistinction to the administrations’ assumptions), but rather no government intervention. Let the free market create incentive, all around. The more red tape, the more constraints you put on the market, the less incentive will be created and the less quality care the poor and the average person will receive. From doctors, to medical equipment, to insurance companies, to patients, all of our current problems are a result of cost-creating government involvement and meddling. It’s actually quite simple. And before you write off some of the ideas based on the first sentences alone, read the entire solution, not just part of it. Here are the four ideas being proposed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe from the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market.Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing — if health-care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a “national standard” of health care, they would increase their search costs and make more discriminating health-care choices.
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own — rather than the government’s — risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.
3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about.Because a person’s health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. “Insurance” against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person’s own responsibility.All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the “winners” and “losers” will be. “Winners” and “losers” are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If “winners” or “losers” could be systematically predicted, “losers” would not want to pool their risk with “winners,” but with other “losers,” because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers’ right of refusal — to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable — the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups’ risks.As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution — benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low-risk groups. Accordingly, the industry’s prices are high and ballooning.To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

Found on Drudgereport.com