It often leaves me feeling bewildered at how little we as Americans know about our health care system. We hear words like preferred provider, health maintenance organization, Medicare, Prescription Part D and Veterans Care. These are all terms that we use every day, yet do we really understand where they come from and why health care as gotten to be so complicated in the United States? From my vantage point, it appears so simple in other industrialized countries, everybody gets care and everyone is given a level of care that is agreed to in advance by the governing agencies of the health care system.

When I consider health care in France, England and Canada, does it appear equal? Yes. Does it seem fair? No.  I chuckle at this thought because the “yes” in “equal” implies that all have access, while the “no” in “fair” often refers to lack of individual control and choice in how our health care is provided.  People simply want choice and freedom, this does not equate to security. There is the inherent risk that elements of health care choice imply some risk.

What makes national health care so attractive to some? Is there really a problem?  Why do I feel so vulnerable when I believe that I should have security? What constructive ideas exist to improve access and care to all who receive health care? These are questions that I asked myself and I believe I have found some answers in part; however, I admit I will never have all the answers.

It is not widely known that the Federal Government has given anti-trust exemption to the health insurance companies. Meaning?  Health insurance industry as a whole does not have to have the public trust when conducting its business. It is a three legged stool whoose purpose is to provide an acceptable level of health care, regulate its risks and pay dividends to its share holders or investors. This also includes playing the “Constitution card” that allow  Health Insurance industries and the Federal Government to claim under the Eleventh Amendment that it is the States who regulate health care, not the Federal Government . As a result, states are held at bay by health insurance providers who threaten to leave individual States if forced to cover everybody.  To make things more interesting, people are denied appeal authority through the 14^th Amendment because health care is not considered a right.

What about Medicare and Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California)?  These are Federal Programs, right? Indeed they are. However, it comes at the cost to the tax payer and not the health insurance industry. There is no anti-trust exemption in Federal Programs. Further, it is not widely shared or known that Health Insurance companies are exempt from provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (Title V). Thus, in effect we often experience double taxation and the average citizen is left to feel frustrated at the end result. The tax payer, who may or may not afford their own health care, is required to foot the bill for those who are deemed a health risk. This only doubles the frustration level on the part of some.

The health care debate begs for one fundamental question to be asked, is health care a right or is it privilege? If it is a right, then perhaps it should be given some consideration to some type of national health care program.  If it is a privilege which is granted by the state than perhaps one recommendation would be that all health coverage entitlement programs be subject to review.  I know this seems harsh; however, the current system has been whitewashed and politically pandered by federally elected officials who have no direct ability to change health care unless the anti-trust exemption issue is revisited and changed.  It appears Congress is no rush to do this.

I am not supporting the elimination of health care for people who are poor, aging or have disabilities; I support the work of Congress who has refused to take the lead on such an important issue. I have also learned that this is a Congressional issue and not a Presidential one.  I learned Congress has for far too long been silent on answering the question of rights and access to health care. Congress in its abdication of its responsibility have given credibility to the likes of Michael Moore and fringe groups who make huge profits to their own benefit which only continues the cycle victimization of the United States population at large.  It is time to ask is health care a right or is it a privilege?

I have never blogged before and most likely will not do so very often.  When I do it will be with historic reference and irony with todays news or situations.

Immigration Fence” marks changes in freedom

I have taken a a few months to gather my thoughts, review my quote sources and evaluate what I know to be true and right. I am a fan of the late President Ronald Reagan and I make no apologies for this. He is the last United States President who had the innate ability to make me feel good and proud to be an “American”. He was cherished by many for his belief in people and not systems or schemes. With the signing of the Immigration Bill, there must be a collective groan from the Memorial in which he lies to rest.

I remember President Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate located at the Berlin Wall who with statesman-like flare shared the immortal words “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall”. These words will forever be remembered as the beginning of the end of the Cold War. These words set the stage for freedoms in Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus and a unified Germany. Today we have a current President and Congressional leadership who utter the words “build a fence” in unified fashion. These words change the meaning of freedom and hurt those who in the words of Reagan “dare to dream.” I am deeply saddened by such an act to build a fence at our southern boarders.

When announcing his run for Presidency, then candidate Reagan spoke of three countries Mexico, Canada and the United States having free movement working together to create an economy which allows people to stay in their native land while enjoying prosperity and a higher quality of life. The United States would be a partner in development and economic expansion in Mexico and abroad. This was the expansion of freedom and democracy that made belief in Reagan’s vision for America and hope for what could be. The “immigration fence” effectively restricts the dream and vision for both the United States and Mexico. This drastically changes the relationship in what should have been America’s greatest ally and domestic partner.

The cost of such action cannot be measured in dollars alone. It will be measured by the tyrannical leaders of those nations we are trying to make a better place, including those of the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America. The “immigration fence” undermines the integrity of the very message we send to countries abroad and weakens our credibility as those leaders look to the “fence” as the benchmark of our political sincerity. In 1987 President Reagan pledged the resources of the United States to assist the Soviet Union. In 2006 we have vastly limited our resources to a neighboring country.

In 1991 President Reagan stated “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free” I am forever mindful that since 1991, a generation has passed.