This post is in response to a well written article/post from an obviously more liberal point of view.   I recommend reading his thoughtful piece .  His few pages are closer to a good legislative framework then our Congress and White House have come to in 1000s of pages across 5 committees As you may or may not know,  I appreciate any-one’s point of view that is willing to talk and discuss with a mind towards an solution and not simply to try and score points.   It shows a far greater understanding of this country (though it does include his mistaken views of GOP voters and the Tea Party crowds).  But you know even that can be corrected.

My Response:

Derrick, I appreciate what I perceive as an honest and well thought out vision for health care.   I am impressed that you avoided the blame game (mostly) and but forth specific points that create a basis for discussion.

I happen to fall in line with Steve, however.  Our rights are God given and last I checked the bible did not mention insurance policies.  At least not the paper kind.   The constitution of this country was written to protect us from the government and insure our personal (civil) rights.   We have gotten too far from that and allowed Washington to gain too much power (both parties).

I agree with most of your demands in general terms; if not their implementation.  Let me speak to a major point of contention.  You state that a government program will help break the Insurance monopoly and contain costs.   You use the same, overheated, argument about Medicare and it’s lower costs.   The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no requirement for them to break even.   Sure they avoid the “evil profit” side of the equation.  They do so by running billions of dollars in the red.  Let me run a company that can lose billions a year and I could contain costs as well.   The government option in any form (allowed to run in the red and/or tax to balance it’s budget) is unacceptable to me.

Do not fool yourself that, “it will be budget neutral.”   You fall into a very simple trap that I used to believe.  You ever wonder why, if this is so important and must be done now, it does not go into effect until 2013?   There is a simple fact in Washington.  Each Congress is independent.   This Congress will pass a law, say it must be budget neutral and pass the implementation to the next Congress.   The next Congress; being independent; is not subject to the restriction of “budget neutrality”.  It would be “unfair” for one Congress to set forth rules and limitations on another.   Therefore, like all other deficits, they will decline to take up the provision and just let the law run.

The only way to force budget neutrality and price control is by government action upon the private sector where costs must be balanced.   With this known, many of your demands (though valid concerns) must take on a different focus.

…

Thanks again for the open discussion.