The debate over national healthcare is being discussed throughout the country in town hall meetings from coast to coast this month of August, as congress is in summer recess. It made me think of a personal comparison I have between our healthcare system and what we can find in Canada.

Sometime in mid-October of 2008, I managed to injure my left shoulder in an accident while doing some work at home. I was moving some boxes that I had stored in my garage and I stumbled over something. In the process I managed to catch my fall by stretching my left hand out to the wall. My hand grasped the wall, but the momentum kept my body moving forward. The result was very painful as I forced my arm and shoulder back into an unnatural position.

Now, I'm not the type person that runs to the doctor whenever I get a headache or upset stomach. I did some self-administered first-aid immediately and returned to work on Monday. Luckily, for me it had happened early on Saturday morning, so I had the week-end to take it easy. I thought, that if I just took it easy I would heal in time, you know - body heal thyself. Needless to say, that didn't happen. I called for a doctor's appointment.

When I was examined by my doctor, he decided to send me to a specialist. He thought it might be a torn rotator cuff. After having an MRI scan a few days later, I returned to the specialist and he advised me I could have surgery or do some physical therapy that might help. I decided that therapy was the route to take. I had therapy 2-3 times a week for several weeks then was left on my own to continue the therapy exercises I had been taught. To this day I haven't had any surgery.

Unknown to me at the time and not for about a month after my injury had occurred , I learned that a Canadian , I'll call him Bill, working for the same company as myself, had suffered the same injury about the same time as mine. When I asked about him and what he was doing about it, his supervisor told me that he was on the waiting list for an MRI test. He told me that it wasn't scheduled until mid-January 2009. To make a long story short, the essence of this story is: by the time Bill had his MRI test, I had seen my regular doctor, been to a specialist (an orthopedic), had an MRI test, back to the specialist and started on and was about half way or more through my physical therapy sessions at the doctor's office.

Recently, I ran into a coworker of Bill's and asked him about Bill. He told me that Bill finally returned to work about the end of this June or first part of July. Also, that he had hated every minute of the time off. I had expressed to my doctor that I didn't want any restrictions placed on me and continued working after the injury. I don't believe that was a choice for Bill.

Now, one could say, but his healthcare was provided by the government and therefore free, mine wasn't free. Oh really? It's true, I had to pay a copay each time I went to see a doctor and each time I had a physical therapy session. However, the copay was reasonable and affordable and worth the cost to me. Is his healthcare really free? Wonder what he pays in income taxes compared to me. All the waiting time he had to experience, was amazing to me.

Some questions that could be considered when discussing national healthcare might be the following:

If something is working why change it?

If something has some things that need to be reformed, then why not address those places for reform instead of establishing a whole new national healthcare system run by the government?

If there is so many millions of people without healthcare, why not establish some form of national healthcare for them and leave the majority of people who are satisfied with their healthcare alone?

If government takes over with national healthcare, one might ask, when has government ever ran anything that has ever worked?

Has government monopoly on anything ever proved to be cost efficient?

Can the healthcare insurance industry compete against government?

If a national healthcare system, Obamacare, is so great, then why has congress, Democrats, voted that they do not have to participate in a national healthcare system?

Do you want another federal bureau run by another czar or czarina, unanswerable to "we the people", making healthcare decisions about you and your family?

Or

Do you want to have the power with your chosen doctor/doctors concerning decisions about your health and not have some government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor?

Do you want to have a loved one turned down by a government bureaucracy for treatment, because they are too old for that treatment, because the government figures it's not cost efficient?

What about the possibility of rationing with national healthcare?

What about the issue of research and development? Would there be any incentives for research and development by the medical profession or by pharmaceutical companies if the federal government was running national healthcare?

Do you trust the government to take care of your healthcare needs?

Can we really afford a trillion dollars or more in government spending on national healthcare?

Do we really want government to take care of us from cradle to grave? Or do we want government to leave us alone and let us take care of ourselves?

These are some questions that might be pondered on and some that might be asked at town hall meetings that are taking place this month throughout the country.

I'm no expert on this issue of national healthcare. I don't have all the answers to the questions. I do listen and read as much as I can to the debate. I believe in limited government and personal responsibility. I don't believe that government should be the answer to all the problems we as Americans face. I don't want my government to turn into the nanny state. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, however I define that to be. I want government to protect these things for me, not define what they are for me.

Perhaps national healthcare is not about national healthcare. Instead, maybe, it's more about more government power, what do you think? I think, the more powerful government becomes the more liberty and freedom "we the people" lose, do you agree? If you agree with that, then would you agree that once lost, it would be almost impossible to regain that liberty and freedom? Perhaps establishing national healthcare is another step by the Obama Administration in changing this country into The U.S.S.A. - The United Socialist States of America - "...change we can believe in..." Right!?

By: Thomas Noffsinger
I invite you to view my blog at: http://www.politicalthoughts-libertytom.blogspot.com
Tom Noffsinger aka Liberty Tom.

Do you ever get the feeling that this country is always in the shop being "fixed"? I mean, every year like clockwork a group of 535 mechanics trot off to Washington to tweak and tune our system with new laws and more regulatory agencies as if what we have just isn't working right. My question is this: will there ever come a time when we have all the laws and government we need and we can just let the country run?

As with an automobile it seems rather pointless to always be fixing and never driving. But that is what we are mostly about in America today - fixing problems. And boy, do we have problems - just ask the 535 mechanics. No jobs, bad jobs, unsafe jobs? They're on it. No gas, expensive gas? Got you covered. Offended, profiled, hurt feelings? Just make the call. It's amazing how many problems you can find when you advertise your services under "victims wanted". But is this what our congress is supposed to be about? Sure, the constitution directs the legislature to coin money and raise armies and even to promote the arts and sciences but decide how much money corporate executives can make or tell you what kind of car you can drive? Seems a little pushy don't you think?

The problem is this legislative leviathan we've created has found an endless source of food in the growing group of Americans who now look to government to make their lives better. The last election showed clearly that Americans can now be won over solely on the promise of more government - that is, more "fixing". What I want to know is this: after all the years of fixing that apparently haven't fixed the problems has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that it is the fixing that might be causing the problems in the first place?

The job of government is to run the country not to provide fulfillment in the lives of it's citizens. How about you 535 mechanics take some time off and just let us drive our car for awhile? I don't know about you but I would rather drive a rusty car than sit in a shiny one that's up on blocks any day.

By: Alan Corbett

If, in the next election, a new candidate were running who espoused the following views and principles how do you think he would fare. Would he have even a ghost of a chance of being elected in modern-day America or would he be shunned as someone with absurd notions and ideas; ideas out of touch with our needs today. Let me outline the platform of this hypothetical candidate and you be the judge:

1.) Morality is indispensable in preserving the freedoms that Americans enjoy and the principles the country rests upon.

2.) English should be made the official language of America and immigrants expected to assimilate in order to share in our social benefits.

3.) It is not the province of politicians to hand out benefits but, rather, to preserve and defend the principles upon which this nation was founded.

4.) The traditions that came forth from the founding of this country (such as prayer, Christmas and the pledge of allegiance) must survive.

5.) What we need is less government not more. More laws, more taxes and more regulation trade liberty for security and are not in accordance with any constitutional mandate.

6.) America is a republic and as such the government should serve the people and not the other way around.

7.) Ours is a nation built on Christian principles and we must not defer to any notion that states otherwise. Our moral underpinnings are as essential to our nation's success as freedom and justice - indeed they are one in the same.

Okay, so there is the platform for our new candidate. What do you think? Could this person get any votes today? Now the kicker - this candidate is really a composite of renowned statesmen from the past. All of the principles outlined above were said by the following people:

1.) "Statesmen...may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand - John Adams.

2.) "Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -Theodore Roosevelt.

3.) "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight Eisenhower.

4.) "A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril." - Winston Churchill.

5.) "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

6.) "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises." - Abraham Lincoln.

7.) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

These people were all part of the reason for America's greatness, but I wonder - could any of them get elected today? It's something perhaps we should think about.

By: Alan Corbett

The White House has released another of its health care reform clarification emails--- there will be more. It seems strange to me that the focus is on insurance coverage rather than on the spiraling costs of the health care itself.

Frankly, the drafters of the insurance reforms have little, if any, understanding of insurance, risk assessment, or underwriting--- and nary a clue about running a business. But why should they care? This is Robin Hood politics, not business. Why do we continue to re-elect them is a far better question.

Incidentally, I am not a health insurance salesman or healthcare professional--- just a payer of far too much in small-group insurance premiums in spite of a crazy-high deductible!

Insurance is neither a cost of obtaining healthcare services nor an expense associated with those services. Insurance is an agreement in which a private company agrees to pay part of someone else's medical expenses in exchange for premiums it collects in advance from all of its insureds.

If President Obama owned the New World Order Health Insurance Company, he would not be willing to insure an applicant with brain cancer nor would he be willing to pay an unlimited lifetime benefit to all insureds--- not without a premium that reflects the risks to his personal bank account.

Theoretically, insurance companies collect enough in premiums to operate profitably while paying all the claims they have agreed to pay under contracts with the individuals and groups that they insure. If we add more risk, the insurance company has no choice but to increase premiums.

The persons who own the insurance companies (you and me, pal) expect them to operate profitably. The companies employ thousands of actuaries, healthcare industry expense analysts, claims adjusters, fraud inspectors, service personnel, underwriters, risk assessors, etc. to assure that this happens.

Insurance companies protect us by standing ready to pay "covered" expenses over and above whatever deductions, exclusions, and limitations are agreed upon in advance. There is a viable legal contract between the parties--- financial disasters are avoided if we get really sick.

Within the terms of their agreements, insurance companies determine who is insurable, and at what premium. Their job is to pay covered medical expenses--- and they have a vested interest in keeping medical expenses as low as possible. But do they really?

Just as the financial crisis was partially caused by business conflicts of interest so too are there conflicting interests in the insurance-healthcare-drug-medical supply industries. These conflicts reduce the natural desire to control the costs of all healthcare services.

We can control the industry to eliminate the conflicts of interest. We can (and should) police the boardrooms of insurance companies to eliminate "abuse of shareholders" through excessive salary packages.

Perhaps we should require health care insurers to be "mutual" companies, or maybe "network" doctors should not be allowed to bill patients for amounts above what the insurance actually pays. Maybe the annual deductible could be dealt with differently without increasing premiums.

We can tax for-profit hospitals higher to encourage more non-profit care facilities; we can keep doctors, insurance and drug companies from owning hospitals; we can cap jury awards for medical malpractice or error, and we can give tax relief to medical practitioners who provide free health services to the indigent and uninsurable.

But the government's efforts to redefine insurance are counter-productive. As cold as it may sound, if we make insurance companies cover pre-existing brain tumors, the expense is coming out of your pocket in the form of higher insurance premiums or higher taxes--- and it's likely that the healthiest among us will be the ones paying the increased taxes.

The White House list of reforms, every one of them, would increase insurance company costs and our premiums while doing nothing to reduce the price of the medical services we receive. They only sound good to those who do not understand insurance.

Insurance is designed to pay the bills--- reforms need to make the bills smaller for everyone. Does this plan cut any costs, or just increase insurance premiums for those who will still be able to pay them?

Group health (and even dental) insurance is a benefit used by many employers to attract and retain employees. I've heard rumors that the reform plan will tax employers who don't provide insurance and tax those employees who receive the benefits. True or not, neither approach helps the economy or reduces health care expenses--- both raise taxes for everyone.

Insurance can only be made more affordable by reducing the costs of the healthcare that is provided. Let's focus on streamlined record keeping, controlling ambulance chasers, jury awards, drug company advertising, an army of lobbyists, and industry conflicts of interest.

We should also make all government employees, from the top down, dance to the same tune as the rest of us--- that'll do away with the tax on benefits. Then, next chance you get, do away with an incumbent.

By: Steve Selengut
Sanco Services
Author: "The Brainwashing of the American Investor: The Book that Wall Street Does Not Want YOU to Read" and "A Millionaire's Secret Investment Strategy".

Included in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed earlier this year is the requirement that all medical records be transitioned into electronic files, doing away with the pen and paper charts doctors have historically relied upon. Sure it sounds good, but please, let's think about it realistically.

When this transition is complete there will certainly be success stories for plan architects to tout to the public. However, what happens when the computer system crashes? I'm not talking about just the national system mind you, but the system in your doctor's office?

Secretary Sebelius and Vice-President Biden recently announced grants totaling $1.2 Billion to reimburse doctors and medical facilities for the cost of making the switch from paper to electronic files for all medical records. As is usual with bureaucracy business, the specifics of the actual requirements to qualify for reimbursement are a bit fuzzy. Did we learn anything from Cash for Clunkers?

Obviously, if the national system goes down, due to hacking, east coast blackouts, human error, software or hardware issues, we will be in a world of hurt. What happens to patients awaiting a critical test result prior to the administration of life-saving medication, or a pathology report needed to direct the surgeon's scalpel, should the system decide to blink? Can you hear a mother pleading with an emergency room doctor to "Help my child!" only to be told the computer is running slow today?

Last year I went to the dermatologist for my annual check-up. I have a history of small skin cancers, so I keep that appointment religiously. However, when the nurse entered the examination room I was told their "system was down" and there was no access to appointment records or patient charts. The nurse asked me, "Why are you here today? What have you been seen for in the past?" Obviously, this physician practice has already made the transition to electronic files.

Okay, let's be fair. If you take your child to an emergency room far from home their records won't be available at a moments notice anyway. But, circumstances usually take you to the emergency room nearest your home. And, there is always the telephone...

How many times have you been totally frustrated because you were unable to complete a task due to a slow or completely fried computer? What will happen if such a system failure occurs when a life and death medical record or test result is hung up?

The more complexity we build into our systems, the more we rely on technology. It can be a wonderful thing, but are you willing to bet your life on it? Aesop taught us that "slow and steady" wins the race. Let's think this through and get it right the first time.

By: Lynn Baber
Visit Lynn at http://LynnBaber.net
Lynn Baber is a Christian writer, business woman and retired equine professional. She shares the lessons learned in thirty-five years at the business table and round pen with her clients and readers. Highly credentialed in issues of leadership, customer relations and most things equine, Lynn has a unique perspective not found elsewhere. Whether the topic is customer service or training stallions, Lynn brings years of experience to presentations and articles. As a frustrated citizen, Lynn spent nearly two years running for office, earning 57,000 votes, but losing the win to Warren Buffet's son, Howard.

Farmers will tell you - for whatever reason - their herd of cows will invariably head toward the hedgerow in a field and try with all their might to graze on the grass on the other side of the fence - although the same grass - and plenty of it - is available to them right in their own field with no extra reaching involved.

We've now learned that taxpayers aren't much different - they, too, are always looking for something better - on the other side of the fence - fearful they might be missing out on something good - or worse yet - that someone else might have it a little better.

This premise is the heart of the current health care debate involving the so-called public option part of the President's health care plan - and it is mesmerizing the country and political pundits alike.

Congress will soon return from its August recess and Members have had plenty of time to assess what their constituents have been saying about the health care proposal. Most don't want it - but a few non-vocal taxpayers still believe it's the best way to go.

The issue over a public option has come down to the fact that some Americans believe other countries are doing it better, cheaper, and more efficiently through a taxpayer-supported health care system - while opponents are calling these plans "socialized medicine."

It's a debate on political philosophy because no one knows exactly what the public option will entail - it hasn't been written yet and the details won't be known for some time. Still, some taxpayers see the grass greener on the other side of the fence and they want to give a public health care program a try.

While President Barrack Obama has wavered on his support for the public option, the liberal base within his party is insisting that it be included. They argue that only with a public option can health care costs come down and provide competition to private health care companies.

Opponents counter that there already competition in health care - after all there are hundreds of private insurance companies offering a variety of plans. They also contend that health care decisions need to be made between the patient and their doctor - and that the federal government need not have a voice in those decisions.

There is also the issue of competency and money. A public option plan will cost billions to administer and the federal government's track record isn't very good when it comes to spending our money. No one can credibly argue that the federal government will administer health care effectively or economically - yet that doesn't deter its supporters from wanting it to be included in the plan.

Most federal agencies are awash in waste, fraud, and abuse and one doesn't have to look too far - the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Medicare, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Agriculture, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the Department of Veterans Affairs - to see examples of inefficient and wasteful federal agencies.

The "cash for clunker" program administered by DOT is an example of federal government incompetence - and it was a mere $3 billion program. Thousands of local car dealerships have yet to be paid by the government for participating in the program.

Imagine waiting for a health care reimbursement check as the government dilly-tallies around with your paperwork - or worse - waiting to hear back on reimbursement approval for treatment or an emergency surgery.

The fact is the current health care system - while not perfect - is the best system anywhere in the world, and we've all heard the stories about people in other countries on long waiting lists for operations such as hernias, gallstones, and hip replacements.

Still, many taxpayers are convinced there's a better health care system somewhere else - just beyond our borders - and they want the option for a system like that too. Yet it's good to remember the lesson learned on the farm - cows always look for grass that might be greener on the other side.

Yet we all know what their ultimate destination turns out to be.

By: Robb Austin
Robb Austin is a former newspaper reporter and elected Member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and has successfully run numerous Congressional campaigns. Learn more at http://robbaustin.com