Talk of The Villages Florida - View Single Post - Medicare Part D & The Donut Hole
View Single Post
 
Old 11-04-2009, 08:47 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptownrob View Post
I'm curious, hypothetically speaking of course, if those of you who are opposed to any publicly run health insurance plan took advantage of Medicare Part D- which represented a huge increase in unfunded programming for Medicare?

Is there personal responsibility to refuse to participate in government "giveaways" or do we only put the onus on the originator of the spending?

There are now plans to close the donut hole as well. Don't these two alterations to Medicare represent an attack on fiscal responsibility? And if so, shouldn't we be telling seniors to go back to spending their own money on their medications?
There are copious reasons why many Americans oppose a public run health insurance plan. Advocates with deception, smoke and mirrors talk about keeping your current coverage as an example of choice. In fact, most of us understand that those "choices" will disappear as employers opt out of the coverage they currently provide to employees and retirees. This will manifest when the government, unencumbered by profit motivation and the ability to just raise taxes and spread the wealth and health, gives them a cheaper option. Some will opt out, some will just pay fines as we morph into a government run single payer system. I think you know that is the ultimate goal of the current White House. They have not been even vaguely obtuse in using the words "path to a single payer system" to convince the hard left to accept any form of the public option. Indeed, it is a path. If nothing else, the radical left is tenaciously patient. The end result will dilute the quality of care for all.

Some posters have argued quality of life issues as trumping extension of life. While on a personal basis, I prefer quality of life, my main concern with government run health care is that politicians and bureaucrats will be significantly involved, one way or the other, in these decisions. I strongly believe that the decision making process should be the exclusive purview of the individual not the state. Therein lies the crux of my opposition and presumably, the objection of many others.

I believe every American should have the right to secure whatever level of insurance coverage they want and the government has no business regulating that condition. I believe its wrong to mandate "spreading the health" to include people who would rather buy a new Cadillac, flat screen TV, trip to Las Vegas, or a bigger house instead of investing in insurance. Further, it may surprise you that I believe the government should have a limited role in providing health care for those in unfortunate circumstance through no fault of their own. I am aware that deciding who would be the beneficiary of such support is a complicated, controversial issue but, not unsolvable.

In answer to one of your specific questions, personally, I had no expectation or desire for the government to pay for my medications. I would not protest if that program disappeared tomorrow but, I understand that is just my choice and I do not presume to speak for others who enjoy the benefit.