[edited 02.27.12] With regard to the looming debate before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare, the editorialists at the Roanoke Times invite you to entertain two alternative constructs. (1) Obama's Affordable Care Act, draconian mandates and all, will be upheld and our health care delivery system will forever be controlled by the United States government. Or (2) Obama's Affordable Care Act (which is quickly proving to be everything BUT affordable) will be declared unconstitutional and we'll have nationalized health care, a system that will forever be controlled by the United States government.
See "If the [Affordable Care Act's] market approach to reform falls before the current court, national health care will become the viable, and necessary, alternative."
You'll either have nationalized health care or nationalized health care.
Are those my only choices?
A smart person might wonder, since history is showing us that, as government (federal and state) has intruded more and more into the health care business over the last six decades, the system has become completely unwieldy and costs have skyrocketed, if maybe the whole government intrusion notion might be a bad one from the gitgo.
But not to those who see government as the solution to all the nation's problems (that government either created or exacerbated). (I'm inclined to bring up the nation's 10,000 gun control laws. Some asshole in Chardon, Ohio breaks a host of existing laws and shoots four students there and what do we need? That 10,001st law!)
Here's the way clear-thinking people see it: Government has caused the health care cost problem. More government has caused the price of health care to go up. More government will cause the price to skyrocket and will cause the quality of care to decline.
Nationalized health care or nationalized health care?
Either will produce what we already have, only more.
How about an alternative that might actually work? Something the not-so-smart people at the Times - on a different subject - are really big on: CHOICE.
How about we get government out of our shorts (sound familiar, Times editorial team?) and let We the People decide for ourselves how we wish to protect ourselves and our families when it comes to health care coverage?
Rather than a government requirement that everyone pay (an arm and a leg ...) for coverage, how about we allow insurance companies to offer a menu of services to prospective customers? (Want total and complete health care coverage, cradle to grave? Get out your checkbook, baby. Under thirty-five, single, and male? Why do you want to waste your money on any coverage again?)
Our choices will be dictated to us by a bureaucrat in Washington who is heavily influenced by a politician in Washington who is heavily influenced by a lobbyist in Washington. Still. More so. Lots more so.
What is that definition of insanity again?
Memo to the Roanoke Times editorial page: For people who believe with all their hearts in CHOICE, you sure don't act like it in any circumstance, save one.