March 15, 2010

Dear Mr. President: Thank You For Creating Natoma Canfield's Problems

When Barack Obama delivers his upteenth "the time for talk is over" speech about Obamacare in Ohio today, he will try use the story of cancer patient Natoma Canfield as a heart-wrenching anecdote to justify the government seizing control of 20% of the nation's economy. What he will not do is explain is tell the truth about what Natoma Canfield cannot find affordable insurance, which is a problem that he and his fellow politicians artfully created.

In what appears to be White House boilerplate, there are stories being run by various legacy media outlets today lamenting Ms. Canfield's condition and her loss of insurance.

Once again, President Obama and his serially dishonest allies will try to slander an insurance company as being heartless and greedy, a soulless, profit-seeking entity that exists to wring as much money away from people as possible before tossing this infirm away as a discarded husk. In today's particular bit of theater, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield will play the villain, but only the name changes from one episode to another. Democrats have latched on to the strategy of trying to convince Americans that it is the insurance companies at fault for higher health care.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Like any major industry in the United States, the health care industry exists to provide a much-needed service in exchange for profit, and it employs millions of Americans towards that end. Those employed directly or indirectly by the industry are your friends and neighbors, sons and daughters. 1 in 6 jobs is related to the health care industry.

The insurance industry is a major component of the health care industry, and a vital part of making health care affordable by sharing costs. But health care insurance is becoming less affordable for many Americans. That we can't deny. What politicians—and liberal Democrats in particular—are desperate to conceal is the undeniable fact that they are directly responsible for making health insurance so expensive by creating barriers to competition and driving prices up.

What Barack Obama will not mention in his speech in Ohio today is the truth. He will not lay the blame for the rising cost of insurance at the feet of his fellow politicians and bureaucrats that have created mountains of laws and regulations that have crippled the ability of insurance companies to compete with each other in a free market system for your dollars. He will not admit that his allies have created blockages to bringing your health care costs down. Red tape, callousness, inefficiency and bloat are the signatures of government intrusion into the private sector, and power-hungry politicians such as Mr. Obama are the root cause of the increasing price of insurance. They are not the solution.

Barack will not mention this truth. Barack cannot acknowledge this truth. In the bizarro insular world he inhabits, more government is good. Bureaucracy equals efficiency. Tight government control is superior to individual initiative, ingenuity, and drive.

When Barack Obama uses Natoma Canfield as a prop today, he will see her as justification for intrusion, not as a person. To him,and those like him, Canfield represents a dim and anonymous Public That Must Be Taken Care Of instead of individuals with dreams and aspirations. In his perfect future world, she and we will be numbers in the system to be cost-justified and managed from cradle to grave.

If Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the Democratic party were remotely interested in decreasing the cost of health care and increasing its quality, they would be creating a bill of deregulation, freeing companies to seek efficiencies and compete for your health care dollars across state lies, undercutting each other to as they compete for your business much as Geico competes with State Farm competes with Allstate for your car insurance.

Has anyone you know ever been bankrupted by the cost of car insurance?

Wouldn't it make far more sense to let health insurance providers have the freedom to compete that car insurance companies have?

But Barack Obama isn't in Ohio to make insurance cheaper for Natoma Canfield. He hasn't been on a year-long campaign of subterfuge to make coverage better, or the process and bureaucracy less tedious. Obamacare isn't about any of those things.

Above all, Obamacare is about growing government, asserting control, and forcing submission to an ever-growing nanny state. Barack Obama is in Ohio today to tell the world he knows better than you do what you need.

But Obamacare isn't the solution.

Obamacare is the cancer.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 15, 2010 09:24 AM

Right on. Anyone who believes that the President is truly interested in keeping the free market system going and ensuring that consumers have good choices--particularly with reference to the health care industry--is about as confused as is Harry Reid when he calls our federal income tax "voluntary."

May our senators and representatives be unwilling to follow Mr. Obama's duplicitous lead.

Posted by: Michael (Constant Conservative) at March 15, 2010 10:15 AM

The health insurance industry has joined a long list of American industries villified by the Democrats. Energy, pharma, doctors, non-union auto companies, Wall Street, Fox, chemical companies, lumber companies, developers, airlines, farmers, tobacco, fisherman, firearm manfu, cable companies, bloggers etc etc etc.

Not suprising the lawyers are OK.

Posted by: Rick at March 15, 2010 10:41 AM

She had a choice all right: pay $8,400 for a high deductible policy or pay the mortgage and taxes on her home. She chose to keep her home and take a chance on her health - bad choice (though her insurance company might have dropped her anyway when she got leukemia). Only in America!

btw I do know someone who had to declare bankruptcy because of their child's medical bills. Unfortunately they couldn't get coverage because of her "pre-existing condition." The fact that YOU don't personally know anyone who has had this problem is totally irrelevant.

The utter heartlessness of many allegedly "Christian" conservatives continues to amaze me!

Posted by: Tom at March 15, 2010 12:27 PM

Tom you are a puts.I personally had to declare bankruptcy because an insurance company oked a sergery and then denied it claming pre-existing conditionan and I still dont want the goverment taking it over becouse they would only make it worse.and to tell you what relly sucker at the bankruptcy hearing the hospitle or the docters made a clame aginst us!!!!

Posted by: Rich at March 15, 2010 02:26 PM

Tom, your reading comprehension is sub-par. The reference I made was that no one goes into bankruptcy because of car insurance. I know this because I wrote:

Has anyone you know ever been bankrupted by the cost of car insurance?

Wouldn't it make far more sense to let health insurance providers have the freedom to compete that car insurance companies have?

The implication was that if health insurance companies had the freedom to compete that car insurances companies do, that costs would drop tremendously, and would perhaps greatly lessen the number of people filing health-related bankruptcies.

But continue your conjugal relations with that fowl.

It suits you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 15, 2010 02:35 PM

In spite of all the tear jerker stories, medical care now is better for most people than it will be in the not to distant future after this bill passes. Doctors will generally be of lower quality and be less caring than they are today as the inevitable nine to five mentality takes hold and the less qualified are sucked in to fill the competence vacuum. The rich and politicians especially will still do OK but even they will suffer. Caring for strangers is not a genetic trait.My free advice is to find a good doc now, even if you have to pay, stay with them and show some loyalty. They are going to be in short supply and you will not be able to command their services, no matter what the prince of lies in the White House promises you.

Posted by: mytralman at March 15, 2010 02:50 PM

ment to say DID NOT make a clame insted they wrote it off as a loss!

Posted by: Rich at March 15, 2010 03:08 PM

Delving into OT... Wasn't Obama The One that wanted to talk to everyone about everything? Didn't he want to negotiate, without preconditions, with Iran?

Why are Republicans the only ones he wants to stop talking to and stop negotiating with?

He wasn't so sanguine about ending talks when GWB told Saddam that, "Time for talk is over".....

Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 15, 2010 03:23 PM

Are you aware that if a doctor give free care to someone in the US that he has broken the law? In fact, some doctors have been prosecuted for just such an action. I know of a doctor in Mississippi that tried to avoid the Medicare hassel by just charging the minimum amount for visits. The result, he was convicted of Medicare fraud. That despite the fact that he did everything proper.

The problem that we have with our medical services in the government. When an old buy comes in for any procedure, the government does not come close to paying the cost of his care. Our friends at Harvard thought up this concept in the 80's. As a consequence, all of us have to pay greater and greater amounts for health care as a hidden tax. Why do the politicians want this bill? There are several reasons, but it has nothing to do with this poor woman and the fact that she can't obtain insurance. One reason is that despite the fact that government run insurance does not pay its part, they are going broke. Much of this is due to their obsession with watching for fraud and the numerous regulations. This likely adds about 30% to the cost of medical services. Ths pols thus want to get the premiums from those of us who are healthy and apply this to the continued care of the elderly. At the same time, they will be reducing care options for the elderly.

But consider, the Dems know they are going to take a big hit in the coming elecitons. So why push the issue? These people could care about you. They are thus setting a stage for much greater power and control than ever before. If they get control of health care, then they can dictate just about anything.

And Tom, we are concerned about the poor lady that Obama talks about. The problem is that he could have passed a two page bill one year ago with 100% backing that would take care of her and others. Why didn't he do that?

Posted by: David at March 15, 2010 04:43 PM

She is a housekeeper. I want to know if she pays income tax on her earnings. Bet ya a cookie she hasn't.

Also, if she couldn't afford to keep her policy when it was $500/month, how is Obama's discounted group policy going to help her? She still wouldn't have been able to afford it, she still would have dropped the coverage and she still would have needed the operation on the taxpayer's dime.

Look, I don't like paying for my health insurance either. No one does. But it's important to so I and millions of other Americans pay our premiums monthly. Would I like to keep the monthly premium and instead buy a large screen tv? Or go on a cruise? Heck yeah, but that would be a bad move. Hard to feel sorry for someone who knows she is at risk, drops her coverage and hoo...can't afford the operation. I agree that coverage can be expensive, but heh, here's a new concept for those who need more money...get a second job! (Here ya go - try this: http://www.Professions.Com )

C'mon! Why are we wasting our time on this? Don't we have two wars to fight with Iran building a nuclear bomb?

Posted by: john paul at March 15, 2010 09:45 PM

Tom...please do not argue points, on a blog where people can't even spell their insults correctly. Rich? It's "PUTZ", not puts. "Hospital", "Surgery", "Against", "Ok'd",
"Claiming", "Really", and "Because", and other words, were also misspelled. Perhaps you should be arguing to reform Education (Ed-u-kay-shun), as it's shamefully obvious that the system has failed you.
I will agree that Ms. Canfield is being used, but look at the facts. It's going to be charity or Medicaid that assists her now. That's out of our pockets, and doesn't solve the problem of coverage. I checked...she hasn't used money for cruises, either. Where DO you (John Paul)get the nerve to imply that? Do YOU pay your insurance, or is it provided and negotiated by your employer?

As for the insensitivity of inviting her to "get a second job" assinine can you be? The woman might be doing all she can, and all you can ask is why, between horrific illnesses, she can't work harder. What a jerk.

Finally, I've experienced the finest heath care with excellent insurance. Still, we were taken within $300 of complete ruin. I worked THREE p/t jobs, while being the only caregiver my husband had. Had to fight for disability, too. Couldn't get help, because we owned a home and (former) savings. My husband worked from the his hospital bed, two days after colon surgery. Once you've traveled this road, you'd want a bit of reform, too.

Tom? Follow me to the exit. One cannot argue with the insane. But it's fun to tweak their noses.
Any misspellings on my part, are typos. What's YER excuse?

Posted by: DEB at March 16, 2010 01:21 AM

My wife had cancer surgery in 2008. We had no health insurance because of job loss and retirement. We could get no help because I, on Social Security and a VA pension, made too much money to qualify. I am slowly paying off those bills every month and have reduced them to less than 20,000. They will take $10.00 to $20.00 a month, trust me it is so. I am still against obamacare even though I recieve my care through the VA. It is not socialized medicine, it is something I earned with sweat and blood and tears.

Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at March 16, 2010 05:56 PM

A little nugget for you from north of the 49th. To all those worried about governmnent run health care, here's a real story. I am a 55 year male who had 4 stents inserted in my coronary arteries following a heart attack. I was airlifted to Vancouver (400 miles away) the day after being admitted to emergency. I didn't have to pay for anything and yes I can go to any doctor or any hospital in British Columbia. As for taxes, I earned $60,000 in 2008 and paid $10,000 total in taxes with just a $4300 retirement savings plan contribution as a tax deduction. Do the math. Give your money to a for-profit insurance company or pay the tax to a government that is actually accountable to the voters? Maybe Americans are so sceptical because they no longer believe they live in a democracy. Very sad:(

Posted by: BenFranklin at March 18, 2010 12:11 AM