Fewer Choices, More Taxes, Less Freedom
In response to this opinion piece in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:
re: House health reform plan works for Houston and Texas
In praising the government-imposed health insurance "reform" plan that recently passed the House, Mr. Wortham gets one thing right: "big private insurers" shouldn't be "call[ing] the shots" with respect to health care decisions. Unfortunately, his prescription for an ailing system is to replace corporations with government bureaucrats rather than putting the decisions about what health care coverage is best where they belong: in the hands of individuals and families. Rather than removing government-imposed barriers to competition and choice (e.g., prohibition against group plans and interstate purchasing), the House plan praised by Mr. Wortham simply creates more mandates and raises taxes.
With respect to the claim that increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government agencies somehow "even reduces the federal deficit", Mr. Wortham should keep in mind that this is based on the combination of tax increases (during a recession) and supposed cuts (actually decreases in previously proposed increases) of $400-500 billion in Medicare — "cuts" that groups like the Wortham's AFL-CIO have vigorously opposed in the past and will no doubt lobby against enacting.
The answer to true health insurance reform that really "works" is to remove government barriers to individual choice and competition — not to let faceless, pencil-pushing government bureaucrats decide what's best for individuals and families. The bill that passed the House of Representatives on a partisan vote is, to use Mr. Wortham's word, simply "wrong" — for Houston, for Texas, and for America.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX




And it's unconstitutional!
They don't have the authority to do this. What more will have to happen before the people wake up and say enough is enough?
Reply to this
Unfortunately, Supreme Court decisions have basically rendered dead any hope that government action will be considered un-Constitutional. I would love to be the one to challenge this, though.
Reply to this