published Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

Chuck Fleischmann v. ObamaCare

All of us want everyone to have whatever medical care we need. The problem, of course, is paying for it.

The best solution would be for us all to have personal medical care insurance, reasonably financed jointly by us as employees and employers.

But when our medical needs and demands are not met that way, there are efforts to require "somebody else" -- the government -- to pay for them, as though we, the taxpayers, were not the ones who have to pay the huge cost.

Most of us prefer to have personal, private medical insurance where we work. But as a result of trying to dodge personal and employer responsibility, we have tax-financed "ObamaCare," which naturally is very costly to taxpayers and yet is not satisfying.

Our local Congressman Chuck Fleischmann has a realistic view of ObamaCare. He said recently: "I believe that ObamaCare is more than just terrible public policy. It is unconstitutional. If ObamaCare is upheld, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that is contrary to the vision of our Founding Fathers."

In addition, it will be very expensive to us as taxpayers.

Rep. Fleischmann, in a news release after U.S. Supreme Court arguments over the president's health care plan, said: "Indeed, if the government can force an individual to purchase health insurance, then there are literally no limits on the power of the federal government. As a member of Congress, I will not rest until ObamaCare is repealed in its entirety."

Unfortunately, that is not likely. So, as a result, the American people will be imposed upon with high taxes, and we probably also will not be satisfied with our health care. The prospects are not encouraging.

The ideal way to handle needed medical care, of course, is through personal, individual medical insurance, jointly provided by us and our employers, with government filling the gap for indigents. But because medical care is both important and expensive, many of us have a tendency to try to pass our medical responsibilities off on "the government," without facing the inevitable costs that we as taxpayers must bear.

12
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
dfclapp said...

Another us-against-them editorial. In this view, the country is divided between those who take care of themselves and those who don't, and that it is unfair to expect the former to pay for the latter. In the real world, businesses depend on a strong middle class to buy their goods and services, and rewarding the haves while starving the have-nots creates stagnation and frequent disasters not healthy growth. It is no accident that our two worst financial breakdowns came at times when wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few.

April 4, 2012 at 6:22 a.m.
joneses said...

And the redistribution of wealth will only make the ones that distribute the wealth much wealthier than the wealthy we have now. No one will benefit but the obamas, pelosis, gores, clintons and reids of the country as we will create a much smaller extremely wealthy ruling class. The democrat, liberal agenda is to destroy/change the wealthy in this country so they can redistribute it to all their cronies and the middle class and poor will suffer.

April 4, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

You are right, dfc, this editorialist and others on the right always like to make it seem that those without health insurance are either too stupid or too lazy to buy it, when the simple fact is that health insurance is prohibitively costly, period. The only way to have coverage today is to be fortunate enough to work for one of the few remaining companies that provide health insurance or to be wealthy enough to buy your own. While it's true that some single people in their 20s and 30s do make the choice to defer buying it, thinking that they are healthy and somehow resistant to disease and even accidents, the vast majority of people who don't have it desperately want it and know they need it, but they cannot afford the outrageously high premiums.

The very ones, like this editorialist, who constanlty condemn governmment funded health care as "evil" socialism and unconstitutional, are the ones who also say that regulating the health care industry is "evil" socialism and unconstitutional as well. Notice that this editorialist's only "solution" to the problem is to change absolutely nothing, just keep health insurance the way it always has been. That is truly some clever thinking on his part. The conservative teabagging mentality never ceases to amaze me.

April 4, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

We already have universal social healthcare, and the only way to control costs is to remove the bloodsucking insurance system from our midst. Who doesn't want all of our healthcare money to go towards healthcare and not some parasitic middleman. Single payer will be the eventual answer, but not until the parasites have been expelled from the host.

April 4, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
Livn4life said...

I look forward, though only with contempt, to the day when all you universal healthcare proponents wake up and realize what has been squandered away to the government. When those unreliable folk who run things as they do in Washington take over more and more of our lives and it will not come back short of some drastic occurrence, I hope you still have a voice of disgruntlement. But you most likely will not. To try and reshape a nation founded as we were in the ways this alleged Affordable Health Care Bill is attempting will begin a road to demise. Oh it will take a long time but just wait. I hope you enjoy the few freedoms which will remain. Yes this country is divided. Neither "side" from a political perspective either knows or is courageous enough to do what they know to be right for the country. To just keep on and up the anty on government spending, which the new healthcare bill has been proven to do, is insanity carried out. But in this brave new world, I hope all you proponents of it, are happy and satisfied. LOOK OUT, IT'S ON THE WAY!

April 4, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Government funding of health care is not government CONTROL of health care. What do you think we've had in the U.S. since 1965 (Medicare) that has worked extremely well and has been much more efficient and less costly? Even with Medicare costs rising, its administrative costs are still far less than those of the private insurance companies. You righties who are always whining about governmment wanting to CONTROL every aspect of our lives are so paranoid and full of fear, you must tremble at the sight of your own shadow.

As long as our health care is left in the hands of private, for-profit insurance companies, we are doomed to an inferior and unfair system, monopolized by a few who make obscene profits at our expense. Obamacare is not the way to go - it still leaves us at the mercy of the greedy, blood-sucking insurance companies. We need universal coverage for all. But at least Obamacare is better than nothing. For all of you who are crying about how expensive it will be, just wait and see how much more it will cost the nation if it is repealed. Costs will soar exponentially.

April 4, 2012 at 1:45 p.m.
chet123 said...

WHY DONT FLEISCHMAN LEAD BY EXAMPLE....WHY DONT HE JUST DROP HIS GOVERNMENT FINANCED HEALTH CARE

April 4, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
hambone said...

Chuck (the stealth congressman) won't have his job much longer.

April 4, 2012 at 2:46 p.m.
Plato said...

The conservative argument against universal health care is short sided and misses the point. They seem to think by overturning Obamney Care that this "saves" the taxpayer money - it actually costs the taxpayers more money in the end because people that aren't covered wind up in the ERs and the cost of this, the most expensive form of health care, is subsequently passed on to the insured and the government (which means the taxpayer).

There is no such thing as a free lunch and we are going to pay for health care collectively as a society one way or another. One way to mitigate those costs is to have everyone in the system so that when a person is diagnosed with high blood pressure and high cholesterol for instance, they can get put on meds to control the condition at a very low cost, instead of waiting until they show up at the ER with a heart attack which will wind up costing the rest of us hundreds of thousands of dollars.

April 4, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.
acerigger said...

Careful Plato,, you're pointing out the obvious and making TOO much sense!

April 5, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
joneses said...

If obastards health care plan is so great why did he exempt himself, his family, congress, the autoworkers union, citizens of Nebraska, the Supreme Court Justices and all federal employees? I know why. What he thinks is good for you and I is not good for him.

April 5, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.
Plato said...

Jonesass -

The Affordable Care Act does not exempt federal employees including those you mentioned - that's a myth:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/

Also the so-called "Corn Husker Kickback" that would have provided additional medicaid assistance for Nebraska was not in final bill that became law.

Try getting your information from reputable sources instead of the propaganda spewing hacks on Fox news and you won't look so ignorant.

April 5, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.