Health Care in the Republican "Pledge To America"
by Larry Perrault on September 25, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I’m still looking over the document but, from the “Pledge To America:”
“We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage to they need.”
The document began with all kinds of rhetoric about honoring and restoring the founding principles of The Declaration Of Independence and The Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment. And it speaks soberly of liberty and personal responsibility, and also includes a pledge to cite the specific authority in The Constitution for all legislation.
Now, I’ve always lamented Republican dithering about contending with the promises of Democrats and their legislation, and I fully understand that they want to avoid painting a big fat pre-election target on their backs for Democratic attacks. But can someone tell me how in the world a federal government can “ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need” and what possible constitutional authority there is for such a pledge?
It’s easy for Democrats to promise this, because they mandate that everyone must buy insurance (which will inevitably rocket in price with a ban on exclusion for preexisting conditions) and could care less about constitutional authority. There are no specifics, but it’s surely a little awkward to include such a line in a document that gurgles about unalienable rights and constitutional principles when there is no way to “ensure” such care without imposing on the liberty of health care providers and technological developers.
I wonder how long it will be before I can see some detail on how this might be addressed. It seems to me that the only constitutional way to even facilitate provision of care for preexisting conditions is to push (or pull) money and responsibility down to states, localities, communities and families. It is either liberal fraud or fantasy that people are left to die without federal dictation. I’ve never seen it in my entire life, though federal actions actually diminish the capacity of communities, families and states to deal with these things by its taking of wealth and authority.
In fact, my city already offers medical services for those in need. It’s something of a slow and crowded cattle call, but it’s better than a federally funded and dictated system would be in short order. Entitlement revenue and responsibility should be remanded to states that can choose to push them closer to home. How many families would happily and lovingly tend to their families if members could choose to keep their FICA deductions from their pay? Aside from the depersonalization and waste of a bureaucratic and remote system, it also serves to severely diminish the natural ties and responsibilities of communities and families for one another.
Incidentally, I personally am not a fan of “tort reform” that caps jury awards; maybe for “pain and suffering” bt especially not for malpractice. Why is it not preferable to have a system like countries where the loser of a suit pays all of the cost? That poses the surest discouragement of frivolous suits: unscrupulous lawyers will not file likely losers. And likewise, doctors will not take actions that they cannot capably justify without the signed consent of patients or families. Such self-regulation would be better than that from government.