More often than not, writing from the first person point of view is unacceptable.
It probably comes from the perspective that the first person portrays personal experience and personal opinion.
However, there are times when the first person point of view is appropriate. Today,
Today, first person is appropriate.
I am totally disgusted with many of the American people; more so with individuals who cannot distinguish two different issues, confusing those issues into one.
This has happened continually with Obamacare and is now happening again with the Graham-Cassidy bill.
Both of these government plans are about health care insurance, not health care.
What's even more troubling is alternative news media outlets, like the Daily Caller, are doing the same thing.
Case in point is the opinion piece by Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.
Before beginning, let me say that I empathize with anyone who has a chronic disease, especially children, and those caring for family members and friends with chronic diseases.
I cannot begin to know their plight.
But, their situation and the empathy felt does not negate my opinion nor elevate theirs above others.
Her piece, "What Jimmy Kimmel May Not Know About The Health Care Bill," calls Jimmy Kimmel the "newly-minted health care expert" while she purports to correct this third-rate comedian from the entertainment industry.
However, Ms. Hawkins falls far short and shows her failings by advocating for the Graham-Cassidy legislation.
She goes on to claim "exception" status from others who voice opinions on Obamacare and the Graham-Cassidy bill because she has two children who suffer from Cystic Fibrosis.
This does not give her opinion any more weight than mine or yours.
Her response comes on the heels of alerts sent by several unnamed rare disease associations on the perils of the Graham-Cassidy bill while supporting the unsustainable, failing Obamacare.
Ms. Hawkins recognizes the failing and unsustainable nature of Obamacare; yet, she barrels forth to support the Graham-Cassidy bill, which in and of itself is just as unsustainable and will eventually lead to single-payer government-sanctioned health care through federally controlled, State-administered health care insurance.
In her zeal to applaud a "bill" that she believes will help her children suffering from Cystic Fibrosis, she rushes headlong into comparing health care insurance with health care.
As a reminder, Obamacare and the Graham-Cassidy bill are legislation governing health care insurance.
It has nothing to do with health care.
Moreover, health care insurance does not guarantee anyone access to health care or payment for services. How is this hard to comprehend? It becomes increasingly difficult when politicians, the president, lamestream news
How is this hard to comprehend?
It becomes increasingly difficult when politicians, the president, lamestream news media and some alternative news media keeps repeating the lies.
She writes, "What is clear is that single-payer systems are not the solution, especially when every day matters and yearlong delays in single-payer systems are common as government entitles and pharmaceutical companies haggle over the price of life-extending drugs."
It is true that delays in receiving treatment occur in a single-payer system – sometimes longer than a year.
And, it is also true that single-payer systems for payment are not the solution.
However, the same "haggling" over prices for medications among the pharmaceutical companies occurs in free market systems as well, sometimes delaying needed medications.
Moreover, government entities, such as the Federal Drug Administration, take their time in approving important medications furthering the delay.
Yet, she ignores the point that pharmaceutical companies have hurried medication research and development, falsified research studies, and coerced government officials to release medications that have later been found to be unsafe.
And, pharmaceutical companies are hesitant to develop so-called "orphan drugs" because of the cost that could benefit individuals with very rare diseases.
Orphan drugs are medications developed to treat one specific disease, such as Myasthenia Gravis.
It has no other uses.
These medications are essential to the lives of many; yet, the return on investment is minimal for the pharmaceutical company.
None of that will change under any government, state or federal, health care insurance bill.
Ms. Hawkins continues:
Advocates of the ACA like to say that those who push for this reform bill don’t understand what it is like to face the hard decisions that having a pre-existing condition requires each day. It’s not true for me, nor of one of this plan’s chief authors, Senator Rick Santorum.
Like me, Senator Santorum has a daughter, Bella, who has a rare, genetic disorder that leads to high medical and prescription bills. So why would he write a bill that would hurt his family and those with pre-existing conditions, a bill that (if the other side’s hype is to be believed) would lead to the denial of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions?
The simple answer is that he wouldn’t, and he didn’t. The Graham-Cassidy bill does not eliminate Title 1 of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, it can’t. What it does is allow a state to apply for a waiver that would exempt it from Title 1. In order for this waiver to be granted, the state though must certify that affordable, stable insurance options are available to those with pre-existing conditions. Simply put, states are required to cover those with a pre-existing condition, but we give them the flexibility outside of a mandate, to do this task.
First of all, Ms. Hawkins is under the assumption that members of both chambers of Congress will be receiving their health care insurance under this legislation.
As Americans saw with Obamacare, Congress conveniently made sure Obamacare did not apply to them and voted to opt out many of their staff members.
Are we to believe with the "reliability, integrity, and character" of those who occupy seats in the House and Senate they are going to behave any differently than in the past? Despite Congress "passing" the control to the States, the federal government, read Congress,
Despite Congress "passing" the control to the States, the federal government, read Congress, still controls the reins.
The States are added for good measure to appear to lessen federal government control when it does not.
Moreover, this "plan" to allow the States to administer health care insurance and still maintain the Medicaid program relies on block grants, which is nothing more than state-to-state wealth redistribution, to put it in terms individuals can readily understand.
And, the way this is established, Congress will not allow States to receive a waiver, meaning parts of Obamacare remain in place.
If anyone is naive enough to believe that Congress or any congressional member would not shaft the people when being affected by a similar life circumstance has not been paying attention.
Just as happened in the Obamacare fiasco, both chambers of Congress will continue to receive health care insurance under the same circumstances in the Graham-Cassidy bill.
Nothing will change for the political, wealthy elite.
Ms. Hawkins then makes her argument for the sustainability of Medicaid.
Some argue that this bill would destroy Medicaid, which would lead to millions of people losing their heath care. In fact, this bill would put Medicaid on a sustainable path that would continue to rise with inflation. In introducing his extremist “Medicaid for All” plan, Senator Bernie Sanders said that the best way to lower health care costs was to make people go through the government. If he were right, then it should not take an extraordinary hike in Medicaid spending each year to cover his plan. Raising Medicaid spending based on inflation should be more than enough to cover the people it needs to cover. So why are liberals against this plan but for “Medicaid for All?”
Two words are the answer to that question: Trump and abortion. If Graham-Cassidy passes, President Trump will cement his legacy as President. If he can’t, then realistically Americans are stuck with the ACA forever or at least until we’re broke and no more money can be printed to pay for it all. And Sanders’ plan would give government money directly to the abortion industry while the Graham-Cassidy bill would defund Planned Parenthood and protect the rights of the pre-born.
Medicaid is not now or ever will be sustainable.
Take it from someone who has worked in her State's Medicaid agency, it is a fact Medicaid is not sustainable.
It appears to be "sustainable" because the federal government keeps providing funds it does not have to the States to support it while increasing our national debt that will never be reduced.
Moreover, each year the State Medicaid program searches for ways to cut services and decrease a number of services a beneficiary would receive.
The portion pertaining to Medicaid in the Graham-Cassidy bill is no better than the current system or the Medicaid for all fiasco championed by Bernie Sanders.
None of this has to do with Trump and his legacy as President. Trump's entire campaign was based on repealing Obamacare, not repealing and replacing it.
In fact, Trump's plan included flexibility for Health Saving Accounts, allowing insurance companies to sell healthcare insurance policies across State lines, and moving away from government controlled, sanctioned health care insurance.
The repeal and replace was sold by Paul Ryan and company using a conglomerate of several Republican plans to rival Obamacare that were all as destructive as the Democrat plan of Obamacare.
Republicans never wanted to repeal Obamacare; but, replace it with their plan in order to "stick it" to Democrats, while, in reality, sticking it to the American public.
Graham-Cassidy cleverly disguised it for individuals to think Planned Parenthood would be defunded in order to garner acceptance for the plan for the wrong reason.
Look behind the curtain.
Is this bill perfect? No, but when comparing this bill to the travesty that is the Obamacare status quo and the disastrous financial trajectory it has put our nation on, there really is no choice. And by allowing states a hand in addressing where healthcare spending is invested, the choice to invest in life-affirming providers rather than the nation’s number one abortion provider is long overdue.
Support for this bill can be described as "settling."
The American people are "settling" for what crumbs the federal government throws this way instead of demanding the righteous solution.
What is that solution?
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
This Graham-Cassidy bill is unconstitutional. No government, local, state or federal, should be or needs to be involved in
No government, local, state or federal, should be or needs to be involved in health care insurance or health care.
To understand the issue, one must first see through the lie. But, I am afraid the American people have heard the lie so long, they cannot or dare not face the truth.
The reason Americans have heard the lie so long is the lamestream news media and now some in the alternative news media have become blinded by their support for Republicans. And,
And, still others have been blinded by their "Trump support."
Has everyone forgotten about the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) or "death panels" as it has been rightly named?
Has everyone forgotten about the IPAB rewriting, against recommendations by the American Medical Association, criteria for diagnostic healthcare procedures that will end up leaving certain Americans unable to receive those services, while lessening the early detection rate of diseases that are considered curable in the early stages?
Instead of asking where the Graham-Cassidy bill addresses these issues or the other Obamacare failures, we should ask why Congress – a Republican majority House and Senate – refuses to honor its commitment to repeal Obamacare entirely since these charlatan politicians begged for votes to do just that.
Why should we settle for the crumbs they are willing to throw to us when they conveniently lied to the public in order to get elected?
Why should we believe they are operating on "good faith" now and "establishing" a health care insurance plan good for the American people?
Why are we so ready to believe a repeated lie that we fail to recognize and acknowledge the truth then chastise those that present it?
I've often heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
At this rate, Congress is providing a superhighway laden with "shinies" to march the people down on their way to the proverbial hell of single-payer government controlled, sanctioned health care through the lie of health care insurance as health care.
The propaganda machine is almost unfathomable consisting of the lamestream enemedia, individuals like Ms. Hawkins who receive a platform for her opinion through alternative news media while the righteous side remains unheard, and the millions of gullible individual citizens who believe receiving health care is the same as health care insurance.
And, those of us against any government health care insurance provision are labeled as "people who want to deny health care to the poor and the masses."
Never will I advocate for government to assume authority where the Constitution does not give it.
Anyone who advocates for usurpation does not advocate for freedom, but tyranny and despotism.
When it comes to this issue of health care insurance, advocates for the government to have their hand in it actually advocate for legalized genocide by government, whether they realize it or not.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.