Say NO! to supporting government control of healthcare

In driving back to the office from lunch today (in my beloved SUV by the way), I heard Senator Lincoln once again confirm her liberal love for government during a radio interview. She spoke in favor of the need for "healthcare reform" and justified the expensive nature of the proposals being proffered by her party. Her incredibly thin argument was this: The current plan was 50 years in the making and therefore will be expensive to overhaul. That's it. That is all of the economic support necessary to justify the more than 1 TRILLION DOLLARS her party will propose to spend.

She made a over-simplified blanket statement that cost savings would occur by "managing" long term conditions as opposed to treating "acute" cases. Presumably she is attempting to make us believe the government will proactive and guide better preventative medicine and treatment. These arguments are intended to mislead. She is simply using buzzwords to make some argument sound simple that is not. The arguments being proffered by her and her beloved Democratic Party are simply incorrect, inaccurate, and being proffered by the President and their leaders to hide the truth of their goals and agendas.

But I have a second problem with her arguments in addition to their untruthfulness. They are not credible at all. No area of government regulation which currently deals with healthcare issues functions in this fashion at all. Why is it all of a sudden going to change? Medicaid simply does not in anyway shape or form function according to her proposition. In fact, it functions in the opposite fashion. Her position is bogus. Medicaid always lags in its approval of new and innovative treatments. It always fights preventative measures. All decision are made on the basis of short-term cost savings.

The FDA is a horrible agency and does a terrible job in its approval process of new drugs and treatments. There are hundreds of effective treatments going on right now in "trials" that are having amazing effects. They are not being approved because of bureaucracy and politics - and no other reasons. They treat drug companies as the pariah of our nation - the very place that research and development occurs to develop preventative medicine, non-invasive procedures, etc.

Moreover, the experience of other countries with socialistic, single-payer systems disproves her argument. One of the worst issues in everyone of the other countries that functions like she and President Obama would like the U.S. to function is the government's failure to permit advance treatment, preventative medicine, advancement of new and experimental treatments which would ultimately lower health care costs because they may be more expensive in the short-term. Why is a U.S. run system going to be different when the governmental agencies that we have already tend in that same direction? It is the nature of government to make short-term, cost based, no-visionary, lowest common denominator, one-size fits all decisions.

Someone please tell me with a straight face how the U.S. government that has managed healthcare matters in this fashion through its current agencies is going to suddenly become patient friendly, visionary, and interested in long term results. I would love to hear someone make that argument. Senator Lincoln's comments certainly are not convincing and do not prove the case for government run health care. Instead, they simply prove her love for government and her total loyalty to the government expansion agenda of her beloved party. Watch as she steps up this rhetoric in conjunction with the soon to come deluge of lies and misinformation regarding the hijacking of our healthcare system. This is about her party's agenda to expand government as much as we allow them to do it. Let's say NO!