Why is Britian Considering Scrapping Centralized Healthcare System?

Interesting excerpt from today's End of Day report from Gary Bauer: 

The New York Times reported last weekend that the new British coalition government, facing a crippling national debt, has proposed “the most radical reorganization” ever of the nation’s socialized healthcare system. What is so “radical” about the plan?

According to the Times, it seeks to “decentralize” British healthcare, giving more power to local doctors and patients, as well as “shrink the bureaucratic apparatus.” The report adds, “Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.” After decades of experimenting with socialized medicine, the British are taking steps toward a more market-oriented approach and shedding “layers of bureaucracy” in the process.

Meanwhile, America is going in the opposite direction with ObamaCare’s trillion-dollar price tag, higher taxes, new commissions, czars and regulations. Worse, President Obama has appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to make it all “work.” A New York Times article yesterday quoted Berwick in 2008 as saying, “I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.”

Evidently, many of the Brits who have to live with it aren’t quite so fond of it. A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters in America aren’t too keen on the idea either – 58% favor repealing ObamaCare before it goes into full effect. 

 My thoughts: Is it too much to hope that we Americans (and hopefully a renovated Congress in November) can revisit this entire debate before our newly-enacted health-care reform kicks in?

What's Wrong with Sensible Health Care Reform?

This article by Charles Krauthammer makes perfect sense to me.

His main argument: "Do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness, and inefficiency." The reforms he advocates: Tort reform, interstate purchasing. and taxing employee benefits.

Someone tell me what's wrong with this incremental approach that he advocates?



   

Gambling Away Our Trust?

Tonight I read a couple of San Diego Union-Tribune editorials that raise some questions in my mind about whether I can trust my elected officials in Washington. Cynical readers might think I am speaking tongue in cheek, and perhaps I am.

The first one addresses the massive health care bill that the House of Representatives just passed, calling it a "disgrace" and a "recipe for ruin." It criticizes Nancy Pelosi for breaking her promise to post the entire bill online for 72 hours before allowing the members to vote, but acknowledges that the bill would have passed anyway.  The House "simply didn’t care that a bill with a 10-year, $1.2 trillion price tag was rife with unexamined problems," the editorial says. "It was time to make history, according to these Democrats’ talking points, so they did."

The other one addresses the Obama Administration's claims about how its stimulus bill "saved or created" jobs have been proven to be grossly exaggerated. They cite as one example the Associate Press report that "some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times." The Union-Tribune maintains that "this is a scandal and should be treated as such," and that it "appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas." Their conclusion: "When it comes to the economic stimulus package, it sure looks like the Obama White House doesn't want an honest debate."

Add to this the number of jobs saved or created in congressional districts that don't even exist (!), and it's apparent to me that some of our elected officials are becoming reckless in their disdain for truth. But why? They remind me of gamblers, hopelessly addicted to the thrill of the game but running out of chips. So now they're wagering a huge bet using a stacked deck and counterfeit bills and praying they can get out of town with their winnings before the posse arrives. Perhaps they will. But who will be left behind to pay the dealer?

A Recipe for Ruin
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 10, 2009

 Stimulus Dishonesty
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 11, 2009

Recovery.gov Shows Money Flowing to Nonexistent Districts
Washington Times, Nov 17, 2009

Still Time?

 James C. Capretta, analyzing the recently-passed health-care "reform" House bill, describes it as "madness." (I agree.) His conclusion: "Fortunately, there remains one very powerful opponent to what House and Senate Democrats are considering — the public. Most Americans want no part of this massive liberal overreach. And there’s still time to put a halt to the madness. But the window is closing."

Read entire article here.

The Insanity of the House Bill - James C. Capretta - Critical Condition on National Review Online

Here's a little blurb from Gary Bauer's End of Day report:

Yesterday, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) offered an amendment that would require every member of Congress to participate in the government-run public option if ObamaCare becomes law . . . Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered a similar amendment during committee hearings in the Senate. His amendment narrowly passed. But in an extreme act of hypocrisy, the majority of committee Democrats voted against it.