McCain's Health Care Plan

Normally, I give a fairly detailed opinion on points raised as part of a candidate's health care plan. Now that we finally have one from a Republican, I thought I would do the same. Having just read it, the problem confronting me is that there is no plan. It's nothing but a bunch of marketing mumbo-jumbo that amounts to little more than a new tax credit.

The main problem I experience with health care is availability of insurance. What does McCain want to do? He wants to "...Work With Governors To Find The Solutions Necessary To Ensure Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Are Able To Easily Access Care." Let me translate for you. He wants to throw you into what states call their High Risk Pool, a cumbersome bureaucratically run process with ridiculous qualification procedures, high premiums, and massive deductibles.

My family went down that road. We paid some $400/month for my wife's CORBA coverage for 18 months to qualify for the High Risk Pool. If we had continued, she would have paid $350/month for a $500k lifetime limit (most policies are at least $1 million) with a $7500 deductible. The really amusing thing about that is a $7500 deductible would disqualify us for an HSA. We'd have to reach for an even higher premium to get a qualifying deductible.

maverick (n): Someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action.

Raise your hands if you think McCain's nickname should be changed. What a joke. It took his staff the entire primary season to come up with the same junk Bush said 4 years ago??? Pathetic.

F*ck the FDA

I realize my blog is typically free from profanity, but I think once you read this, you'll agree it's warranted.

Any long-term reader knows that I've put a little effort into researching the drug Lovenox, but it's not often I talk about Heparin, its cheap, unreliable cousin. Where Lovenox provides reliable anti-coagulation at 2 doses a day, Heparin provides unreliable anti-coagulation anywhere from 2 doses a day up to continuous delivery via IV. Heparin's reliability (or lack thereof) can be complicated by various blood conditions, one of which affects my wife. Consequently, the drug is of little importance to me.

Nevertheless, Heparin serves a significant role in almost any hospital medical procedure by helping Doctors and Nurses keep IVs clear of clots. This hits particularly close to home as it was only a couple months ago my daughter had surgery, and I watched them administer Heparin to keep her IV clear. You might also remember what happened to actor Dennis Quaid's twins when the hospital confused two different concentrations of Heparin.

So what am I so upset about, you ask?

Heparin Contamination May Have Been Deliberate

There's been a story circulating about contaminated Heparin coming out of China under the Baxter International brand. Now it seems the FDA has investigated, inspected the factory, and decided that someone was intentionally doing this to increase profits.

So why do I say, "F*ck the FDA?" Glad you asked...BECAUSE THE STUPID, CORRUPT, HYPOCRITICAL, WORTHLESS, MONEY GRUBBING, PIECES OF SHIT said that I couldn't import the same Lovenox from Canada that I buy here at 3x the cost. WHY? Because it could be CONTAMINATED. Well, guess what? The Heparin they stamped with their seal of approval was CONTAMINATED. What's worse is our tax dollars pay for what appears to be a worthless bureaucracy which serves little apparent purpose beyond running up the cost of medications in the U.S.

Is the purpose of the FDA to protect U.S. citizens, or is its purpose to protect pharmaceutical company profits? Read the linked article, and I think the answer will reveal itself.

FDA Rejects Generic Lovenox

As usual, the FDA has protected big pharma over its generic competitors. This time, the FDA denied an application from Momenta Pharmaceuticals for a generic version of Lovenox. Lovenox is a particularly personal medication for my family. At $30/day (our cost, insurance paid $70/day) for 2 years while we were having our first child, the pain of fraudulent patents and FDA protection of big pharma hit all too close to home. Now, maybe...MAYBE...there really was something wrong with the drug, but then again, isn't there ALWAYS something wrong with drugs even if they're approved by the FDA? Pondemin, Vioxx, Celebrex...the list goes on and on. Are they protecting us, or are they protecting corporations?

Researching the Obvious

Spray cleaning products and Asthma don't mix...go figure.

Forbe's Article

England's National Health Service Proving Republicans Right?

This article from Yahoo News details problems in England's National Health Service in delivering dental care. Some of the interesting numbers from the article include:

• 45% of dentists surveyed no longer accept NHS patients.


• 6% of citizens surveyed have practiced self care (pulling their own teeth, attaching caps with superglue, etc.).


• 20% skipped dental work due to cost.

The most telling quote of the article:

"It appears many are being forced to go private because they don't want to lose their current trusted and respected dentist or because they just can't find a local NHS dentist."

Does this mean Republicans are right about socialized medicine, and if so, what do we do with families like mine who are uninsurable in the private market?

Hypocrite Series: Giuliani's (Lack of A) Health Care Plan

Today was the big day. Giuliani made the rounds announcing sweeping health care reforms he would implement as President washing away all of the problems without even breaking a sweat. That's right folks. Giuliani treated us to some real moments of genius today as he REITERATED THE SAME GARBAGE HE'S BEEN SAYING IN THE DEBATES. It's a lot like reading Obama's plan. It's the try-not-to-offend-the-base-but-act-like-I-am-actually-doing-something plan.

"So Hap, what's this amazing plan," you ask. To sum it up, it's Bush's plan from his first run for President:

• $15,000 tax credit for health insurance


• Technology this, FDA that


• Malpractice Reform this, HSA that


• Happy Happy Joy...the market fixes everything

"But Hap," you say, "you like market solutions, tax system equity, malpractice reform, HSAs, and all of the rolly, polly goodness of the Rudy plan."

Alas, tis true, I do like those, but none of it matters if I can't get any ###$#@#$#@$ insurance in the first place. How ridiculous is it that my family's best option in the current health care climate outside of working at a big business with a group health plan is to move to Massachusetts and partake of plan Romney?????

By the way, did anyone notice the little attack on state's rights in Rudy's plan? I certainly did...

Hypocrite Series: Calling Out Giuliani on Health Care

On his blog, Giuliani gives this "Bad Medicine" FUD-fest about Moore's Sicko and Clinton's health care plan. Whether this diatribe is true or not doesn't matter much to me. What matters is that Giuliani and others Republicans (save President Bush, oddly enough) refuse to say anything substantive about how they would fix the problems with our health care system. Now that Giuliani has fired a couple of shots across the socialism bow, I think we deserve more than free market this and competition that. Get specific...how are you going to deal with pre-existing conditions in the private health care market? How can small businesses compete to hire workers if they can't offer health benefits? How are you going to handle pharmaceutical companies abusing patents to keep drugs like Lovenox at $50/dose?

Answer some of these questions or shut the hell up about health care.

Heath Care: Reading Policies for Fun

Reading insurance policies never ceases to amaze me. In a quick scan of the private insurance landscape, I decided to peruse a Humana policy as I had heard some good things about them. Here's the last item on their exclusion list:

Charges incurred for a hospital stay beginning on a Friday or Saturday unless due to emergency care or surgery is performed on the day admitted.

You've just gotta love 'em, right? In other words, we know they probably won't let you out over the weekend so we're just not going to pay for it. Go home and die instead, please.

Health Care: Untie Insurers' Hands

To date in the 2008 campaign, we have yet to see any candidate recommend eliminating the insurance companies from the health care equation. Everyone seems to remember what happened to Senator Clinton's plan during President Clinton's tenure, and they're unwilling to go out on a limb. So if insurers are to remain a part of the system, let's cut them loose from regulations that are doing little to protect consumers and more to hurt them. In my own insurer's FAQ, I found this little gem:

Are the underwriting guidelines the same for all states?

No. Every state has certain guidelines that we must follow. Some states will allow us to exclude, rate-up or decline. Certain states only allow us to accept or reject with rate-ups and others are just accept or reject. Finally, there are states that we cannot decline or issue with exclusions or rate-ups.

Though I haven't researched it, I'm guessing my state is one of the "accept or reject" states as nobody would even discuss exclusions with me when I pursued private insurance. The reason states like mine did this was likely an attempt to protect their citizens, but in the end, all they did was make it impossible for those of us affected to get any coverage, much less bad coverage.

So...to the states. Stop regulating so damn much.

Health Care: Reform the Patent System

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has read my blog since its inception (that means you, honey) that I have issues with the patent system. Being a software developer, I've marveled at the absurdity of patents granted to the likes of IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, and others. Whether it's the GIF image format or Amazon's one-click idiocy or even the RSA's holding web security hostage, patents do more to undermine invention and progress in the software world than support it.

The same can be said of patents with regard to health care. In a previous post, I detailed how Aventis' games with Lovenox patents had a very direct effect on my family financially. Shortly thereafter, the FDA's treatment of Mylan Laboratories over a drug patent demonstrated an anti-consumer, pro-big-pharma, pro-patent attitude within the FDA, the gatekeeper for U.S. health care.

So, how would I fix it?

• Shorten Patent Duration: During the life of the patent system, we've gone from 14 years to 20 years while at the same time improving the technology required to create inventions. There's no reason to grant a 20 year monopoly on anything. I would argue that 7-10 years is a more appropriate duration in this day and age.



• Prohibit Patent Abuse by Pharmaceutical Companies: As I detailed in my Lovenox post, pharmaceutical companies frequently patent a compound upon initial discovery often times without any target condition. Once they create a drug and push through FDA approval, they then patent the final form of the drug, effectively extending the original patent by 20 years. They then use both patents to prevent generic competition. No matter how good they are at smoke and mirrors games, companies should only get one patent on an invention.



• Any Trace of Government Funding in an Invention Precludes Granting a Patent: Think about this one for a minute. Our government throws money at anything and everything through their earmark grants, especially health care. If someone develops an invention using our tax dollars, they should have no right to a patent on the invention. In fact, the work should be in the public domain. It's the only logical outcome of public funding yet it's the exact opposite of what we do.



• No Patent Without a Prototype: I know this might hurt some small inventors, but I don't believe patents should be granted unless a physical product exists. If you want to patent a flying car, fly the damn thing to the U.S.P.T.O. and let them take a look.



• Expire Patents Owned by Holding Companies: While the grandfather clause protects existing IP holding companies, we can change future patents to expire upon purchase by a company who is little more than a team of submarine patent lawyers. If there's no physical product, there's no reason for the patent to exist.



• Time Limits for Patent Lawsuits: If a product is on the market for at least 24 months without any objection from a company holding a patent on the underlying technology, that company cannot sue. Too many companies are using patents for leverage after their product failed in the market. Eliminate that option, but give them enough time to discover offenders.

Health Care: What Would I Do?

In all of my writing about health care including criticism of Republican candidates' failure to put forth any real plans, it occurred to me that I've never put forward any reform plans myself. While my posts have hinted at things I like and don't like, I've never stated exactly what steps I would take to improve U.S. health care. This article will start a series of articles on how I would change our health care system.

Hypocrite Series: Democrats on Bush's Stem Cell Research FUNDING Veto

Obama and Clinton both posted strong rebukes of Bush for today's veto. The only difference is that one candidate was honest, one was not. The Democrats have long played a dishonest game with stem cell research claiming Republicans were banning it. The truth is that a majority of Republicans have opposed government funding of embryonic stem cell research, not stem cell research in general. And, where is it written the government should fund any research?

Before I get on a rant, let's get back to the point. Obama's quote from a blog post:

By vetoing funding for stem cell research once again, the President is deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend their lives.

Nicely done...Obama was honest about it. Let's see what Clinton had to say in her blog's post:

So let me be very clear: When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research.

Oops...looks like she's playing the political game of turning a ban on funding into a ban on research.

Why do I bring this up? I think it's important we find someone honest to go into the presidency regardless of their policy positions.

Hypocrite Series: Giuliani's Ignorance of the State of Private Health Insurance

A Wall Street Journal article discusses the direction Giuliani is going in preparing his own health care proposal. In it, they claim Giuliani will encourage everyone, including those insured with employers, to move to the private health insurance market. Apparently the guy's never had to get private insurance. If he had, he'd realize that they don't want to sell their product to anyone who's ever been to a Doctor. He might win the Republican nomination with this nonsense, but he'll lose the general election in a big way if this is all he can come up with.

Hypocrite Series: Giuliani on Health Care Video Clip

Giuliani's site just put out a video clip of his health care answer:

Giuliani on Health Care

What surprises me in watching this clip again is that Giuliani wants his $15,000 tax deduction to be applied no matter what you pay for health insurance. That means if you pay $8,000, you still get to deduct the full $15,000. That's an interesting idea that will never make it through Congress, and I don't see where you really need a deduction that isn't for the actual amount of the expense.

Anyway, Giuliani goes on to compare his idea of health insurance to homeowner's and car insurance. If you've read my blog, you would probably think I would agree. If so, you're partially right. I agree with the idea, not the analogy.

Homeowner's and car insurance in America is so controlled by government and insurance companies that you have a limited set of choices for deductible. If I have a $130,000 home, I'm unlikely to find an insurer willing to give me a deductible over $1200. They might blame the bank financing my home, but even if I owned it outright, I guarantee you they wouldn't give me a $5,000 or $10,000 deductible.

Car insurance is the same way. Raise your hand if you dropped comp/collision when you paid off your car. Now raise your hand if your deductible is over $500. Okay, I can see my wife's hand, and my hand is up. Anybody else? Nope? Point made.

Like I've been saying, health insurance right now is more like a warranty. It pays for everything with small deductibles or co-pays. Giuliani skirted the better analogy when mentioning oil changes. You don't buy a $2,000 warranty that includes $5 oil changes. You change it yourself for $15-20 (or more if you use the good stuff...Mobile One) or find someone else to do it within your budget. Instead, you use the warranty for a transmission rebuild or engine rebuild like it was intended.

If Americans can't come to terms with the purpose of insurance, then we should resign ourselves to socialized medicine and the expansion of the nanny-state.

I best stop this post before I draw too close a parallel between oil changes and medical tests...that might get ugly and R-rated. :)

Hypocrite Series: Huckabee on Health Care

It's amazing all of the different places candidates leave their breadcrumb trails of positions on the issues. It seems Huckabee is doing a lot on Youtube with short videos on the issues. Here's his take on health care:



Well, as quickly as I gained respect in my previous post, I have now lost it. Talk about the non-answer of all time. There isn't really anything to discuss here. He pays lip-service to the Republican ideal of less government, but that's about it. Give me something concrete, and then we can talk.

Note: As critical as I've been of Romney, let me add that at least he has a proven record of addressing the issue. Arguably, no other candidate on the Republican side can say the same.

Sad Realization

Thomas Jefferson said:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

In a recent city utility bill, the government included a notice about a new ambulance program where utility customers automatically have $4 added to their bill each month to cover emergency transports. If you've read much of my blog, you know that I don't believe the government should be providing such a program, but it is the type of thing I will accept as the will of the majority. Nevertheless, this program is...are you ready for this...OPT-OUT. That's right, you have to opt-out, not opt-in or enroll. To add insult to injury, you can only opt-out during June. After June, you're enrolled for 12 months. If you do opt-out, you have to continue to opt-out every year in June.

I'm not going to go over all of the problems I have with the city's scheme. Suffice it to say, I found it ill-conceived and deceptive. As such, I began writing a letter to the Mayor this evening to voice my concerns. Toward the end of the letter, I started wondering how the letter might affect my family and my business. Who would the mayor share it with? How might they react? Might someone decide to make our lives difficult?

I decided to delete the letter instead of sending it, and it suddenly occurred to me. I'm afraid of my own government...

Hypocrite Series: Clinton on Health Care Reform

As we all know, Senator Clinton has a checkered past with the U.S. Health Care system. I honestly have no idea what she proposed during President Clinton's term in office. I just know that everyone, Democrats included, seemed to dislike it. Whatever the case may have been, a blog post this morning promotes her new agenda for lowering health care costs:

Hillary Clinton Announces Agenda to Lower Health Care Costs and Improve Value for All Americans (PDF)

Where John Edwards gave us some big and, dare I say, sensible changes to the Health Care system as it stands now, Senator Clinton seems more inclined to nibble at the edges and play it safe. It's a 7-step strategy:

1. Create a Groundbreaking National Prevention Initiative to Reduce the Incidence of Such Diseases as Diabetes and Cancer that Impose Huge Human and Financial Costs


2. Institute a New “Paperless” Health Information Technology System


3. Transform Care of Today’s Chronically Ill Population to Improve Outcomes and Decrease Costs


4. End Insurance Discrimination to Help Reduce Administrative Costs


5. Create an Independent "Best Practices Institute to Empower Consumers, Providers and Health Plans to Make the Right Care Choices


6. Implement Smart Purchasing Initiatives to Constrain Excess Prescription Drug and Managed Care Expenditures


7. Put in Place Common-Sense Medical Malpractice Reforms

As you can see just reading the overview, this is really a mixed bag of political mumbo-jumbo and actual changes. A groundbreaking what? When you have to tag market-speak onto your initiative, it probably means there's not much to it. Best Practices Institute? Is this Marketing Ed 101 or what? Smart purchasing initiatives? Thanks for clarifying they wouldn't be dumb. Of course, in her defense on the last one, most government purchasing initiatives are pretty dumb, aren't they? Strike that one...good clarification there.

Anyway, let's move on a discuss some of the good and bad points we have here. Senator Clinton seems most interested in addressing cost. In step 1, she wants to reduce the incidence of diseases like diabetes and cancer. This groundbreaking initiative is implemented in two ways.

1. All insurers must participate in federal prevention programs which would include eliminating copays on high-priority prevention services.


2. Spend money through some stupid beauracracy...I'm paraphrasing here.

Focusing on prevention really isn't a bad idea for reigning in costs, but what do her proposals really accomplish? Just because my insurer offers a free Colonoscopy doesn't mean I'm going to take it. And, if my Doctor doesn't tell me I need a physical, I'm not going to volunteer just because it's free. As far as spending money, do we really believe a few million more through Department of Waste My Hard Earned Money is going to accomplish anything? Pushing money through an agency is just a feel-good way for politicians to pretend like they accomplished something. What's more, all of these arguments ignore the fact that the federal government is not meant to act as my damn caregiver.

Moving on...let's talk about Senator Clinton's paperless IT system. Everyone seems to be on this bandwagon which surprises me since they probably aren't in the trenches handling any health care paperwork. Needless to say, though, the system is ridiculously antiquated and overly burdensome to operate. The problem is that you have to walk the right-to-privacy vs. efficiency lines.

What I want to see, though, is a Doctor's office who can tell me how much I owe when I leave my appointment. I shouldn't have to wait 2 months to find out how much the Doctor discounted for the insurance company or how much the insurance company covered. I should be able to plop down my money at the end of the appointment and neither the Doctor nor I worry about invoicing and payment down the line. I'm not sure if Senator Clinton's proposal wants to go this far, but whatever the approach, we need more and better IT behind health care to reduce costs and reduce headaches for all involved.

Senator Clinton's chronic care initiative sounds like market-speak even in the details section. There's very little substance to it, and it's probably put there just to win some Senior votes.

Step-4 would end insurance discrimination to help reduce administrative costs. Now, I do like what this would accomplish as my wife would be insurable, and we would have more options for how to live our lives. However, I really don't like the fact that she said the purpose was to "reduce administrative costs". Maybe they're trying to win over the insurers with this (I doubt it), but I want it to say "end insurance discrimination because it's stupid" or something along those lines.

Okay, so now we're at blah-blah-Best Practices-blah-blah. Not even worth my time to read...

In step-6, Senator Clinton wants to constrain prescription drug expenses. It would be nice if this section included some sort of patent system reform, but unfortunately, it doesn't. It does, however, hint at some possible patent reform in attempting to remove barriers to generic competition by removing loopholes exploited by prescription drug companies to prevent generic competition. Since prescription drug companies typically abuse the patent system to keep out competition, I'm going to assume Senator Clinton wants to fix that but just doesn't want to say that's how she's fixing it. Sneaky...

The rest of this section is just marketing b.s. with the exception of letting Medicare negotiate prices. This must only be an issue due to campaign contributions, bribes, lobbying, and who knows what other underhanded dealings between politicians and the drug industrty. Medicare constrains costs on everything except prescription drugs. It's high time the government constrain prescription drug costs.

And last but not least, Senator Clinton wants to put in place malpractice reform. Of course, she doesn't want to admit Republicans were right about this in the previous election, but I'm sure she's studied health care enough to know malpractice insurance is a major burden for Doctors. Reforming the system would be a good thing for Doctors, but I'm not sure her "National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act" will work. Regardless, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and call it an okay idea.

That about sums it up. It's not great, but it's not terrible either. It's a far cry from the kind of socialized health care system a lot of us expected, and it does solve a couple of very basic problems in the system as it exists now. Compared to Edwards' plan, I think it's a loser, but picking between Clinton's and maintaining the status quo, I'll choose Senator Clinton's plan.

Now, as to the rest of the candidates save Ron Paul (who I'm sure would want to eliminate federal involvement in health care), let's hear some real proposals instead of campaign speak. Clinton and Edwards have given us details so put up or shut up.

Hypocrite Series: John Edwards' Health Care Plan

In browsing the blogs today, I came across this post about John Edwards' Health Care Plan. Written in the usual inane drivel fashion, I figured there would be no concrete plan to backup the blogger's assertions. Damn was I ever wrong, and here's the link:

John Edwards' Health Care Plan (PDF)

Now in my ideal world, Health Insurance would return to being just that...insurance. Insurance today isn't really insurance. It's more like a warranty where the two parties are in a contest to see who comes out ahead at the end of the warranty term. The difference is that the warranty provider in this case has a limited amount of knowledge about the warrantied device upon which to make a decision on the cost of the warranty. In some cases, they just won't sell the warranty to someone. In other cases, they raise the cost of the warranty to cover the worst case scenario so that they're always ahead at the end of the term.

Insurance, on the other hand, takes care of you when something catastrophic happens. We've lost track of that in this country, and we need to figure it out in all areas of insurance, not just health insurance. You don't use insurance to fix the crease you made in your bumper backing into a light post. You don't use insurance to replace a mailbox destroyed by the neighborhood houligans. And you certainly don't use insurance to pay for routine Doctor's visits, prescriptions, and tests. You use insurance when it's something big....a 2 week hospital stay, a stolen car, or a house destroyed by a tornado.

However, let's be realistic. Neither consumers nor insurers want to dramatically change the system we have today. It makes people happy to walk in, pay their $10 co-pay, see the Doctor, and walk out, and insurers love raking in the dough. If that's the kind of system the country wants, then let's evaluate Edwards' proposal in that context.

Edwards' proposal doesn't depart too far from what we have now, but it makes two dramatic changes. First, it establishes tax credits for health insurance. One of the great inequities of working in America right now is the fact that if you work for a large employer, you have access to pre-tax health insurance and what are called cafeteria plans. Effectively, you can pay almost all of your health expenses pre-tax. For those seeking private insurance (often small business employees), the situation isn't quite so rosey. There's a 7.5% floor below which you can't deduct any health expenses (unless, of course, you're self-employed). That means if you make $100,000 per year gross, you have to spend $7,500 after-tax before you can deduct. Needless to say, I agree 100% with Edwards' plan to provide equity in the tax system for health expenses.

The second major item in Edwards' plan is the establishment of Health Markets. Health Markets sound very much like what MediShare attempts to do for Christians except it does it on a much larger scale with the blessing and participation of the government. The great thing about this is that it allows small businesses to compete with big businesses for employees. Right now, my company can't hire anyone because it can't offer health insurance. We have just a handful of employees, and the owners have had health problems and have coverage through a separate group plan. Monthly premiums could easily top $1,000/month per employee so it's impractical. With Health Markets, businesses can establish their own coverage, establish coverage through a Health Market, or simply pay a portion of their employees' premiums. And, the most important part, is that the health market has to accept you regardless of pre-existing conditions. If we're going to do a warranty system, we need Health Markets or something like them to make it work.

Like I said, I disagree with the approach of extending health insurance as the American version of socialized medicine. It fails to let the market function as it should. If the consumer doesn't pay, they have no motivation to seek better prices or better service. Nevertheless, there are arguments on both sides, and I'm resigned to accept some level of socialism in health care as a result. If it's Edwards' plan or the current system, I'll take Edwards' plan.

Hypocrite Series: Romney on Health Care

I know it seems like I've been picking on Democrats in this series of articles, but the real reason for that is that the Republicans seem unwilling to say anything of any substance. Well, Romney finally stepped in it in the Republican debate. I didn't watch it on television so I've been catching up to it in clips on the Internet. Here's Romney's answer on Health Care:



Asked about the Massachusetts health care reform he signed into law and helped author, Romney said this:

I love it. It's a fabulous program.

He goes on to say:

But I helped write it and I knew it well, and this is a country that can get all of our people insured with not a government takeover, without Hillary care, without socialized medicine. Instead, get the market to do its job. Let people have health care that they can afford. Get the market to do its job. Let people have the opportunity to choose policies in the private sector.

And to add a little weight to the argument:

We didn't expand government programs. We didn't raise taxes. There was no government takeover. The market can work to solve our health care needs, and that's the great, exciting news.

Just to sum up, Romney said the market can solve our health care needs and that the Massachusetts universal coverage law is great. Okay, let's look a little at reports about that law. From the Washington Post (story link):

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties...

Okay, so we fix health care by turning the uninsured into criminals. Interesting...but let's dig deeper:

Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

Did you miss it? Should I post that quote again? I'm pretty sure they just said "private insurers subsidized by the state." Now, what was it that Romney said in the debate? Hmmm...oh, that's right. I just posted it above...something about letting the market decide, not raising taxes, and not letting the government take over.

Mitt Romney, the label Hypocrite I was applying to myself in this series is now yours as well. From here on out, I will refer to Governor Romney as Hypocrite Governor Romney (HGR) until he clarifies this issue (which will never happen).

So HGR, what's wrong with your Massachusetts approach?

1. You're criminalizing someone paying for health care with their own money. Paying for your own health care without insurance is THE DEFINITION OF LETTING THE MARKET DECIDE.



2. Insurance is a safety-net, not a free pass. Until we start treating insurance in this country as a safety-net to keep us out of bankruptcy, we'll continue to have problems with health care, car insurance, home owner's insurance, etc. Insurance companies must make a profit. They are businesses, not charities or non-profits. As such, they will either look at each customer individually, customers as groups, or all customers as a whole and make sure income exceeds expenses. If they're paying for your $4 monthly generic prescription at Wal-mart each and every month, that $4 is going to be in your monthly insurance cost one way (direct) or another (tax).



3. Plans like Hillary-care, as HGR demeans it (I didn't like it either...I just think it's a cheap shot), at least show themselves for what they are...Socialized Medicine. This half-breed, bastardization HGR built will only lead to higher taxes, doctors and hospitals acting as law enforcement, and who knows what other unforseen consequences.

HGR does some impressive double-talk. He can post "Free Market Health Care" as the title of his debate answer on his site all he wants, but his answer speaks for itself.

Best Friends: Merck and Rick Perry

We all know shady things happen in American politics, but they're usually hidden well enough not to attract too much attention. Okay, that first sentence may not pass the laugh test, but read on...

It looks like Governor Rick Perry of Texas decided to throw caution to the wind. Reading between the lines in an article on Yahoo titled Texas Requiring Cervical Cancer Vaccine for Girls, you can't help but form the opinion that Merck bought an executive order. What would cause Governor Perry to side-step regular legislative process in the state? Why shouldn't the state representatives vote on the measure?

Beyond the executive order, even the title of the article shows the massive influence being exerted by Merck. This isn't a Cervical Cancer Vaccine...it's an HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Vaccine, and only a vaccine for a subset of the strains of HPV at that. Some easy googling reveals nobody thinks this is a silver bullet. In fact, one site remarked that it might prevent 70% of all cases of Cervical Cancer.

Before you get the wrong opinion, I think the availability of this vaccine is wonderful. I'm certain 2-3 of my relatives would have benefited from this vaccine if it had been available years ago, but why does the government think they need to make the choice for them?

As the article states, the vaccine has been "shown" to be safe. How will Governor Perry feel when the first major side-effects start showing up in his state? How many deaths will result? Before you manage to say "FDA blah, blah, blah", tell me this. How many of the currently mandatory vaccines are 100% safe?