|
Tweet
| (4) |
Health care reform should focus on incentives and freedoms

Timothy J. Lardner
On Sept. 14, the Albuquerque Journal reported that 49 percent of New Mexicans oppose a government-run health care plan, also known as the “public option.”
Reforming health care should focus around a strong healthy economy, not government intrusion, penalties and higher taxes.
As a small business owner, I was encouraged when Congress took on the task of reforming our nation’s health care system. However, the discussion over health care has shifted. At first, we were talking about reforming a broken system. Now, we’re facing the prospect of increased government intervention into our personal medical decisions and higher taxes and fees on our families. That’s not something I can support.

Even though a Senate committee twice voted against including a public option in a reform bill on Tuesday, the House has approved a public option, and the president still prefers the inclusion of a public option in the reform bill. Public option is still on the table.
Neither party seems willing to address the contributing factors of the high cost of health care — a struggling economy, loss of manufacturing jobs and a lack of stability in our nation’s energy.
A key goal of our congressional delegation should be to create an environment in which free market values and competition thrive. By promoting such an environment — in which Americans pay lower taxes and have the ability to work in higher quality, better-paying jobs — increased access to quality health care in a competitive market can be achieved.
However, today’s health care discussion seems to revolve around the ideas of bigger government, restricted medical choices and penalties. The current health care package will not only harm the backbone of our state’s economy — with up to 8 percent in higher payroll taxes on small business — but it will also dramatically reduce access to health care in rural areas throughout the state, especially access to specialized care.
The health care legislation currently being debated by Congress is completely devoid of incentives for small business, the consumer or the caregiver — but full of dangerous penalties and higher taxes and fees for everyone. In a note addressed to Nevada Sen. John Ensign, Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold outlined severe penalties within the current legislation should individuals fail to enroll. According to Barthold, those of us who decline to participate in the government’s massive health care scheme could be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a $25,000.00 fine.
Two of the more prominent problems within the health care system are the high cost of insurance coupled with a lack of tort reform. The cost of insurance could be dramatically reduced by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.
Keep government out of the system
A recent national survey conducted by The American Society of Medical Doctors (ASMD) concluded that 70 percent of the nation’s specialized physicians oppose the current reform package and feel that it would significantly hinder their ability to offer the best care to their patients. According to their findings, “Sixty percent of specialty physicians would opt not to accept new patients who participate in the government plan.”
We can afford health care, if we keep government out of the system. Government involvement will generate mandates, misguided supply and demand and a stagnation of innovation. If we depend on the government for a solution, we must be willing to sacrifice our current quality of health care.
As the debate continues — and we get closer to what boils down to a “single payer,” European-style health care system — states like New Mexico will feel the brunt of the detrimental effects of increased government intrusion.
The long-term vision must be based on a more competitive global market in which the United States takes the lead. The White House and Congress must be committed to generating an economy that will allow individuals to afford what our health care system has to offer and not just creating another tax and spend policy that will surely have a detrimental effect on an already debt ridden government.
In the end, this issue goes far beyond party lines or ideology — it goes to the root of our New Mexican values and the well being of our state.
Lardner is president of New Mexico Travertine, Inc., and Santa Fe Marble, Inc. This column was written for Southwest Citizens Coalition’s campaign opposing the public option health care package.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
4 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Contact


Subscribe








MS writes, “Wedum59, it seems you are just 30 minutes from a moderate size hospital in Alamogordo.”
More like 45 minutes if you drive yourself. Add another 20 minutes or so if you have to transfer from the EMT ambulance to the Alamogordo ambulance, due, I believe one poster said, to the fact that they are supposedly better equipped. They pull over below the tunnel and make the switch. What a waste of time and resources.
From Timberon, it is nearly an hour to get to Cloudcroft. 45 minutes from Mayhill, an hour from Sacramento and Weed. Cloudcroft needs a better medical facility.
Sounds like the author of this article is on the same wave length as Paul Gessing and the teabaggers. The AMA does not represent the majority of doctors. Most doctors have never belonged to that organization. Just like the ANA (American Nurses Organization), the fees are costly and you get little for it. Many doctors and nurses are in favor of UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER. The public option or something is needed because people in this country are afraid of “single payer”. Every other industrialized country has some sort of basic care government package and people can buy supplemental insurance if they desire. Americans need to wise up. We rank 37th in the world as far as our “sick care system” is concerned. Our health care system is a mess and so is our economy and our industry and other corporate messes.
One more time – no one seems to understand how legislation is passed in Washington. We do not have even the slightest idea what will be in the bill until the conference committee. That is Civics 101. That is watching Santa Fe year after year. We dialog word for word in HR 3200 but it is conceivable not one word of what is now in HR3200 will be in the final version. Or, just a few words will be removed changing entirely the intent of the original bill. So, if it is in HR3200 there are no guarantees.
As to having an X-Ray machine: in the past I have lived 18 miles from the nearest village (Carrizozo) with no hope of quick emergency care. I drove a hour to a clinic. It was my choice. Wedum59, it seems you are just 30 minutes from a moderate size hospital in Alamogordo.
Incidentally, my grandmother taught in a one room school a few miles from Cloudcroft in 1908. It took a long time to get to the clinic in Alamogordo back then.
“A recent national survey conducted by The American Society of Medical Doctors (ASMD) concluded that 70 percent of the nation’s specialized physicians oppose the current reform package…” The SPECIALIZED physicians went into specialities to make money. They are as bad as the health insurance CEO’s and their ‘death squads’ of employees dedicated to denying that SPECIALIZED care to their customers who need it.
The author if this piece has obviously not read HR 3200. ” …reduce access to health care in rural areas throughout the state, especially access to SPECIALIZED [my emphasis] care. …” That’s ridiculous. People in rural areas don’t have access to BASIC care at present. They need BASIC care, and that is the emphasis of the health care reform and the public option. HR 3200 has many proposals for increasing access to BASIC care in rural areas.
I live outside of Cloudcroft, a village of 800 and the largest town in this mountainous area. The clinic in Cloudcroft doesn’t even have an X-ray machine. We need some BASIC care here!