Socialized Medicine: The final committee mark-up in the House for the socialized medicine bill finished late Friday evening with the bill passing by a vote of 31-28. Five of the "Blue Dog" Democrats (Gordon, Hill, Harman, Ross, and Space) who had previously opposed the bill, voted in favor of it, with the announcement of some minor modifications. Three other "Blue Dogs" (Matheson, Barrow, Melancon) voted ‘No.’ In essence, the bill is the same as it was before. What’s interesting here is that Committee Chairman Henry Waxman called for the vote on the bill when there were still 52 amendments pending that had neither been debated nor voted upon. The Chairman provided a vague promise that those amendments would be heard in September.

So why take a vote on a bill that supposedly isn’t done yet? This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that those who are pushing this mess (including the President and the Speaker) want to show momentum before the August recess. That’s to be expected, but the Republicans in Congress and the majority of Americans, who oppose this increase in taxes, costs, deficit, debt, and the incumbent reduction in the quality of care and competency of caregivers, will not be silent during these next 5 weeks either. I intend to tell the truth about this government-run healthcare plan every chance I get in every medium.

In all practicality, I believe that there will be a healthcare reform bill passed at some point this Congress, and It will likely be directionally opposite from where I think we ought to go. We should be moving further away from the government run systems we have now, and instead be moving toward a true open market where everyone buys the plan they want. Those who cannot afford it are subsidized, and pre-existing conditions are handled through a high-risk pool. The best we can probably hope for in this Pelosi-led Congress, is legislation that will not completely destroy private medicine in this country. With this Congress and this President, this is the new standard for the definition of winning.

Here is an article I wrote for last Sunday’s Washington Times which explores some of the deeper consequences of the push for socialized medicine. I hope you enjoy it. 

Cost-benefit analysis vs. American citizens’ lives
Sunday August 2, 2009
By Rep. John Campbell

Prior to the founding of the United States, political theorist and philosopher John Locke developed the theory that government derives its power and authority from the consent of the governed. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that "in free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." These are the principles that are fundamental to the American system and have helped shape the nation we know and love today.

Flash forward to the current setting and context. President Obama has made his intent clear on health care: Medical decisions will no longer be made by doctors and patients, but by the omnipotent prowess of the federal government. By proposing creation of a bureaucracy to ration care and determine the cost-effectiveness of care for individuals, he has violated at least one fundamental tenet of America’s founding.

The House version of the bill creates fifty-three new departments, agencies and commissions, but one stands out: the ‘National Institute of Comparative Effectiveness.’ Though it may sound benign, this bureaucracy will be used to ration care.

A similar institution exists in Britain, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, given the curious acronym of N.I.C.E. Rulings on whether people live or die are made frequently in Britain and Canada, and if an individual has a pre-existing condition, is elderly, or for some reason deemed "unfit" for a lifesaving procedure, his chances of being granted that lifesaving procedure become uncertain. With health care rationing, lives will literally hang in the balance, subject to the whims of government.

In fact, it is documented that in countries where socialized medicine is in place, citizens suffer from drastically lower survival rates from ailments such as cancer and heart disease. On balance, survival rates range from around 30 percent to 50 percent below that of countries with private medicine.

This socialized-medicine package is a giant leap in a direction that changes the dynamic of government as a servant to the people, violating the widely acknowledged precept of democratic government, that it derives its power from those which it governs. Mr. Obama and other big-government advocates are now effectively forcing a shift in how the government views those it serves. The American government will begin to view its citizens as liabilities rather than assets.

By definition, a liability is an item to be categorized, managed, and ultimately dispensed with. If government views its citizens through the prism of structured assets and liabilities, a terrible precedent has been set.
I and my Republican colleagues view the American people as assets with the intelligence and power to decide for themselves what is best for them and their families. This is something we are committed to fight for, and we continue to do so.

Our grand republic was founded on the premise that the government derives its power from the "consent of the governed." If Mr. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have their way and this bill passes, perhaps we should change that to "consent of the governed, unless they represent too high of a liability."

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.