The child health care nightmare continued....

As expected the fall out has begun over the Bush veto. This may be single handed, the most brilliant political ploy by leftists in the United States to date. The pathetic Republicans who voted against what they claimed to stand for assured that they will lose seats by an even larger margin. Many will be doomed by association, and those of the few that did what is right could face a loss of their seats due to public ignorance. If they had stuck to the principles that used to define Republicans before they became Democrats who are religiously intolerant, Bush may have had stronger ground to stand on. McCain, and Elizabeth Dole (Former head of the Red Cross) voted against the bill and they are MODERATE Republicans. They did the right thing.

Because this bill passed by large margins Jon Stewart (among many commentators) was able to devote much of tonight's broadcast saying W has left the realm of "Nixon" and entered the realm of "Montgomery Burns". That he is evil and wants to hurt children... and the audience... much like most of America is eating it up.

OK... enough of me reiterating my anger of this major blow to fiscal conservatism and loss of independence from government control.

Hillary already was looking like a Shoe-in for 2008.... now I'm beginning to think it will almost be tough for her to lose. Promise people gold and they'll give you their souls.

OK as promised: MY IDEAS FOR HEALTH CARE

Children: They are the most important, and the innocents in the health care debacle. This is the ONLY age bracket that needs or requires additional government assistance to provide mass coverage.

In this case I actually would like to see a variant of the Romney/ Hillary Clinton managed health care plan, with a couple of exceptions. I like the idea of mandating that all children are provided with health insurance. (Much like Hillary's new plan for everyone, and Romney's Mass-care plan here in Massachusetts)

I don't like mandating that adults purchase health insurance. I think if you don't want health insurance that is your own err in judgement. Some people who are really healthy feel they can go a while without paying $250 a month to be in a PPO or HMO and I feel that is their prerogative and right as a free citizen. Politicians and media always use statistics about the uninsured, but a good chunk of this # are people who are uninsured by choice. Could they sacrifice cable TV, entertainment, or minutes on their cell phone to pay for it? Probably. But young and middle aged alike seem to think it is more important to see what happened on Dancing with the Stars then to have affordable doctor visits.

Anyway I digress: Children's Health care should be mandated. Not providing health care to children is child abuse in my opinion. It is the responsibility of those who brought the child into the world to provide for the child, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Given the fact that there are many criminals and selfish people out there, the U.S. government could rise to provide health care when these people break the law.

An additional difference from the Romney/Hillary plans (aside from excluding adults) is that there will be NO government run insurance. Instead, determinations will be made on income and the lower class will have their health care subsidized. People will still choose providers that compete in a free market. Additionally, the government will choose the most affordable provider for children of deadbeat parents. How do I propose paying for it??

Good question, and this actually works into enforcing the plan. For every year parents do not pay for insurance they will be fined for the cost of the plan. If they are the legal guardian, they will not pay this fine until the child comes of age. Since this fine could accumulate to large sums over a child's life, payment plans will accordingly be created. Additionally each parent will be responsible for the full fine rather than jointly. If the insurance premiums are paid by an action of one or both parents, then neither is parent is responsible for the fine. This will make it in the best interest of parents to work together to fulfil the obligation for their child, regardless of their situation.

I don't believe the fine alone is enough of a deterrent, so additionally each year premiums aren't paid will result in 520 hours of community service for a charity or government service of their choice (which must be approved by the program). This will boost the sense of community and increase the strength of charitable organizations. (Again this will be performed once the child turns 18).

We sadly live in a world where people are no longer expected to be accountable for their own actions. This would punish people who don't do the right thing, who have somehow become morally incapable of providing for their offspring. Additionally by including the community service we will all benefit as a community, and hopefully the law breakers will benefit as well on a personal level.

Parents should sacrifice for their children. If they can't afford to pay for the one child they have, they shouldn't have more. While this can't be enforced in a "free" country, a program like this could be a deterrent. If they have trouble buying health care because they are spending $120 a month on cigarettes and $60 on cable then they need to cancel these practices, or have it figured into what they can afford. While I don't see that the government should make a practice to outwardly enforce this rule, I believe parents should be asked, and potentially face penalties for lying about it.

Many Americans take for granted the luxuries they have, and then they expect more on top of it. People do not realize the value of money. They don't realize how important it is to be responsible for themselves and their loved ones. This character trait is getting worse, and government run programs like the one proposed by Congress, and the one proposed by Hillary create a lethargic dependent society, rather than a healthy competitive society.

The program may need initial monetary incubation from various luxury taxes. I probably wouldn't take cigarettes off of the table, but I might have an extra 5% (instead of 40%) but include alcohol products which would likely produce much more income and be more constant over time then the shrinking tobacco using population.

Now I know everyone is thinking what about the elderly... they can't afford to pay for their drugs etc. I'm not saying there can't be improvements or government regulations imposed to keep insurance companies honest and affordable. The elderly are not innocents. Like it or not, we have a lot of time to prepare for the inevitable. Some of us can afford to, some of us can't. Some of us drive economy cars and others have a Lexus. Many of these people saved nothing for retirement, didn't take care of themselves, and then they turn around and expect the government to pony up and try and reverse the years of accumulated damage they've inflicted upon themselves. People get old, people die. Some of us work to try and make ourselves secure. Why should we be punished to pay for those who don't? Actions have Consequences. Medicare and Social Security provide much more security for the elderly than most Nations have, and yet it isn't enough.

Social Security is in trouble because it wasn't run properly. Money should not be "borrowed" EVER from its coffers. Medicare's recent expansion was a gift to big business and was overly complicated and too expensive. Both of these problems need major overhauls.

In terms of everyone's coverage, government oversight of private industry can help prevent abuses by insurance companies and Big-Pharma. However, this needs to be done responsibly. While health care is expensive it is also debatably more advanced, and readily available to people than it ever has been in our Nation's history (contrary to popular belief). Pharmaceutical, Medical device companies, and insurance companies should be allowed to be what they are: Businesses. When that ends so does the advance of medicine, as will benefits not only to the American population, but to that of the world.