After seeing the reaction to my thoughts on the passage of the health care bill, I have decided to dedicate another posting to this topic. Many Americans did not want the reconciliation bill to pass, as was evident by the protests at hundreds (if not thousands) of town hall meetings during the summer congressional recess. Several who did favor the bill disagreed loudly with much of what I said in my last post. I felt some of the comments were lacking in specifics and were driven purely by emotion. While I welcome criticism on my posts, I believe a productive exchange of ideas must be based on specifics.

I welcome people to challenge me with regard to bipartisan support for this bill; however, the record shows bipartisan support was not present for this reconciliation bill. Democrats did not have support within their own party. Back room deals were needed to get support from within the Democrats' own ranks - not the conservatives. If there had been any measure of support from Republicans, there would have been no need to eschew transparency in favor of vote buying. One of these sweet deals went to Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for the new Louisiana Purchase. This deal initially allocated $100 million in exchange for her wavering vote. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Landrieu's "yes" vote did not become solid until an additional $200 million was promised.

Mathematically, the Democrats could have easily pushed this through the Senate with the Democratic supermajority. If you want to talk about transparency and truth, let's talk about the education reform that was included in the health care bill. What do private tuition loan companies have to do with health care? Let's also talk about Nancy Pelosi telling the American people congress needs to pass the bill in order for the people to see what is in it. I'm still scratching my head wondering if she actually said that.

Some of my critics suggested I cannot think for myself, but need Fox News to think for me. I find this line of criticism more than a bit hypocritical. I would propose that the far left is trying to do just that to all of us: remove the ability to think for ourselves out of our daily lives. We are entering the land of expanded government and a corresponding attempt to shed ourselves of all personal responsibility. Suddenly, we are unable to think for ourselves. I am more than capable of thinking on my own. I do that by actually reading the bills myself and understanding how they will affect not only my own well-being, but that of my fellow citizens as well.

Finally, it is now the job of the government to determine (and enforce) minimum health insurance benefits for the people. When else in the history of our country has the government given itself the ability to impose a fine on her citizens for not purchasing something? While I agree there should be changes to the health care system, I do not believe the government should make it a requirement that a person purchase the federally-mandated level of insurance coverage (H.R. 4872 Section 121).

People arguing for consumer-directed health care should realize that this health care bill is not consumer-directed. This is government-directed health care. The government is assuming control over price increases and eliminating pre-existing conditions. We are also allowing children to remain on their parent's health insurance plans until age 26. The insurance companies have been assaulted over their profits while their margins are approximately 3.4 percent. We have not improved health care in this country. All we have done is cause a perpetuating cycle of reliance on the government.

Instant Insights /

Welcome to government-directed health care

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You