T/A ETF AND INDEX

[capt_jmj]

I am not in any way, shape, or form a proponent of *this* HC bill (HR 3200), but this characterization which can be found at various placed on the web contains a lot of interpretation, hyperbole, misrepresentation, and perhaps outright lies. If you want to check a few for yourself, you can find the actual bill here, all 1017 turgid, gut-wrenching pages:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

It is perhaps what the bill does not say rather than what it says that lead many to jump to certain conclusions. For example, nowhere in the bill does it say that illegals will be covered, but neither does it say they will be denied, and as we all know, the way medicine is practiced in this country (at least so far), any warm body who shows up an emergency room is not denied care, and the cost is passed on to the rest of us. The real danger of this bill is in its vagueness. However, if a Government commisssion is given the power to dictate what benefits will be available and under what conditions, that will be tantamount to the "Death Panels" that Obama swears won't exist. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

If universal coverage is truly where we are headed (and which many think is where we ought to go), then there are numerous ways it could be made more palatable *and* which would receive a fair amount of bipartisan support. First, private options must be maintained as the last recourse for those with the desire and the means to pursue treatments that the taxpayer should not be saddled with funding. Every person could be issued a voucher of X (or X+Y for a family) which could be applied to his own HC selection or he could opt for the bare bones Government plan. It has to be a voucher instead of a credit so that all those who don't pay taxes would also get it and so that it could only be spent on a qualified HC plan and not a big screen plasma TV. Even though the extra revenue generated would be a pittance, if we really want to screw the rich purely for populist reasons, then they would get no voucher and would simply purchase their own plans on the open market, sort of how the rich folks pay their taxes and then fork over the big bucks to send little Johnnie or Susie to Harvard or Princeton. Premiums over and above the HC voucher allowance shold be charged and paid as a surtax to those whose personal lifestyle choices affect their risk category (heavy smokers, drinkers, the obese, extreme sports enthusiasts, having more than the Government prescribed number of children, etc.), as determined by an august panel of Government medical bureaucrats, since there is no reason the taxpayer should be on the hook for their bad choices. Lastly, even though the Larsen E. Pettifoggers of the world poo-poo it, the practice of defensive medicine to protect against liability suits is estimated to add at least 25% to the cost of care, and any "universal solution" which continues to line the pockets of the ambulance chasers while denying care to the elderly is simply morally bankrupt.