The most important rule in health care is "first do no harm".  Unfortunately Congressional Democrats seem totally oblivious to this rule. 

Many  Democrats are so egotistical that they think anything they do will  be an improvement.  They seem incapable of understanding  that changes can make a situation worse instead of better just like giving a patient the wrong medical treatment can worsen the patient's condition.  The wrong medical treatment can kill.   Making the wrong changes in the health care system can reduce  access to health care and reduce the quality of health care.

In one of my favorite episodes of M*A*S*H*   Captain Hawkeye Pierce is appointed the unit's chief surgeon.   Major Frank Burns complains to a general when Hawkeye decides not to immediately operate on  a badly wounded soldier who comes in.   When the general arrives Hawkeye has been playing cards while the man was receiving a blood transfusion, etc. to stabilize his condition.   Hawkeye tells the general he can now safely operate because the patient has been stabilized.  Operating too soon would have jeopardized the patient's chances of  survival.

Congressional Democrats continue to push a health care plan substantially similar to the one adopted by Massachusetts which is a failure according to the Boston Globe
 
The program has failed to provide the universal care it was supposed  to guarantee.  Coverage is not affordable.  The cost  of the subsidized program has gone from $630 million in 2007 to $1.3 in 2009.    High deductibles mean people who buy compulsory coverage may not be able to afford to use it. 

Low income families aren't the only ones who have trouble affording health insurance.   Many with incomes well above the poverty level like Ron Norton of Worcester, Mass.,  make  too much to qualify for government assistance but not enough to afford insurance.

The key to successful medical treatment is an accurate diagnosis.   The problem with American health care is the high cost of health care rather than lack of insurance.  High costs make it difficult for persons to afford insurance.

Doctors take x-rays or run tests as appropriate before choosing treatment for any major medical problem.  Congress needs to do the same with health care.  Congress needs to determine the specific causes of high costs to see if they are unnecessary. 

For example, are doctors, hospital administrators, insurance executives, etc. receiving higher incomes than patients can afford to provide them?   Are hospitals or other medical facilities making excessive profits by overcharging insurance companies?  Are so called non-profit hospitals or clinics actually functioning as if they were profit making organizations?   Are the uninsured including illegal aliens really responsible for high costs or are they being used as scapegoats by the health care industry to cover up the real cause?  Are courts forcing unnecessary costs on the industry?

This is breast cancer awareness month so perhaps a breast cancer analogy is appropriate.  Thirty years ago the treatment for all forms of breast cancer was usually  a complete mastectomy.  Today some, but not all, forms of breast cancer can be  successfully treated with a  simple lumpectomy that  removes only  the small tumors, provided the cancer is detected early enough.

Thirty years ago toxic chemicals were used to treat breast and other cancers.  Today a growing number of  cancers can be treated  with milder chemicals that  may attack only the cancer cells  without  damaging other  healthy cells.  In some cases radiation can be targeted to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. 

The American health care "problem" doesn't require radical surgery or toxic chemicals.  Improving American health care only requires  a lumpectomy  and mild chemicals.

 

President  Barack Obama  resembles the  used  car dealer in  the CARFAX commercial. 

You've probably seen the commercial.  A sleazy used car dealer is attempting to push a customer into buying  an apparent clunker.  The  customer  says he won't buy without seeing the CARFAX which would provide a history of the car so the customer would know what he was getting.

Obama has been pressuring Congress to  adopt  some type of health care related program without the lengthy debate that should precede any major change in health care.  Obama's attempt to force the issue implied a major flaw with the proposal, perhaps something so unpopular that he was afraid people would find out about if the measure wasn't adopted quickly.

Used car salesmen long ago gained a bad reputation as a group because some of them have misrepresented  the condition of the vehicles or the mileage they get.  Southern California used car dealers once supposedly would misrepresent a car's use by saying it had been owned by a "little old lady from Pasadena who only drove it to church on Sundays."  Or at least they did until the Beach Boys released a song about "The Little Old Lady from  Pasadena"  who was "the terror of Colorado Boulevard"  in her " brand new shiny red super stock Dodge."
 
Some of today's used car   dealers will sell cars that have been wrecked or in a flood to unsuspecting customers who don't insist on seeing the vehicle's  CARFAX.

Comparing presidents to used car dealers isn't new.  In the late 60's the question was asked about Richard Nixon, "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Did Obama try to force the issue because his proposal really isn't about providing better access to health care but providing money for the health care industry, including insurance companies?  

Forcing people to purchase insurance whether they want it or not would certainly increase insurance company revenues.  The public option would provide billions more in income for health care providers so that more hospitals can afford to pay administrators such as Michelle Obama $300K salaries.  The public option can make it easier for insurance companies to reject those with medical conditions and let the government pay for treatment. 

Perhaps Obama is worried people will discover the Massachusetts Plan he wants is a clunker that the state is considering a plan to ration health care.      

Obama's attempt to force the issue provided  the atmosphere in which a fear about "death panels" could develop.   The idea may have originated  from  statements by some of those associated with Obama who might play a role in implementing any legislation than specific provisions in the act.   

Contrary to denials by Obama supporters, an increased government role in health care could create virtual death panels.  Having government control access to health care could  create virtual death panels.    If a private insurance denies coverage for treatment of a potentially fatal disorder, the patient has the option of  asking friends and family raise money for the treatment.  If  government  took control of health care,  that option might not be available.   A government  agency decision to deny payment for treatment might become a death sentence because private financing might not be allowed.

I might have purchased a used car from Richard Nixon, at least before Watergate, but there is no way I would buy one from Barack Obama.

Why should we believe statements about health care from the most secretive president since Richard Nixon?  We have no way of knowing if presidents who keep significant secrets in some areas are telling the truth on other matters.  

Barack Obama's continued refusal to release minor personal documents like his actual birth certificate, college records, etc. implies he is covering up important information that we should know about.   Unless his critics are correct, none of the information should have any adverse affect other than possibly causing some embarrassment.  

A president who feels he has to keep personal secrets is very likely to also keep secrets about his proposals including those involving health care.   He shouldn't be surprised that many people suspect he has ulterior motives for some proposals and may be lying about their impact.

Obama has lied on other important issues.  Last year he said there wouldn't be any new taxes for most of us.  After being elected he proposed huge tax on carbon emissions that will affect all of us.  The purpose of the tax is to allow the greedy financial interests who bought the White House for him to make billions trading "carbon credits".  

I don't know if his critics are correct that the refusal to release his actual birth certificate is due to him being born outside the U.S., but there doesn't appear to be any other reason for him to keep the birth certificate secret.  Does the birth certificate indicate Obama was born outside the U.S. or could it include information that might indicate that Obama is not  the child mentioned on the certificate?  Perhaps the real Barack Obama died shortly after birth and his mother in a humanitarian move adopted an African orphan to replace the baby she lost.    She then used the U.S. certificate to make it appear her new child was born in the U.S.

Incidentally there is now a claim that someone has found a Kenyan birth registration indicating he was born in Kenya.     As was the case with the document used to claim he was born in Hawaii, the other side suggests it is a forgery.  And, like the Hawaiian document, it merely states that there is a birth certificate rather than being an actual birth certificate.  Those who believe the document is valid suggest it may have been produced in connection with his mother's divorce case.

A group of bicyclists are riding across the country raising money to provide the latest NASA developed rehabilitative equipment called secure ambulation modules for military veterans injured in the current conflicts.   My first reaction to seeing the story on a local tv station was "isn't that great".  We have people wanting to devote time and energy to help injured veterans.

After thinking about it for a while,  I wondered why veterans needed outside assistance to fund their medical care.  Don't we have a president who claims he will correct deficiencies in health care?

So why doesn't President Barack Obama provide state of the art health care to federal employees who were "injured on the job?"   Why did he at one point suggest requiring veterans pay for their own treatment for service connected injuries?  Pressure from veterans forced him to back down.

Obama's failure to fully cover current federal employees health care costs and  attempting to reduce the health coverage provided to former  federal  employees with on the job injuries indicates he isn't telling the truth when he says his proposal won't result in reduced  health coverage.

I learned long ago to evaluate politicians according to what they do rather than what they say.   Obama says his proposal will increase health care, but his actions indicate he wants to do the opposite.

I also learned that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.   I doubt that Obama's promises about health care are worth any more than Bernie Madoff's promises to make his clients richer.