Eric the Red

As the health care debate degenerates into a raucous, I’d like to have a few major questions that need to be answered:

Obamacare supporters say that this plan will “bend the cost curve” of health care. But since new technology generally costs the most money, how will Obama accomplish this without rationing care and excluding the latest advances from coverage?

Obamacare supporters say that creation of a national health care plan will extend health benefits while preserving existing coverage. They claim that if we are happy with our plans and doctors, we may keep them. But if a national plan, subsidized by the taxpayer, is created what will prevent existing insurers from dropping coverage? What will stop employers from dropping their plans in favor of the (less costly) option of paying a small tax and forcing employees onto the public plan?

Why does the current bill make it illegal to enroll in a private insurance plan after the effective date of the bill?

Why does the bill force employers to auto-enroll new employees in the government-run public option? Why not enroll new employees in the employers existing plan?

Medical research costs money. Drug development costs money. Medical equipment costs money. Advances in medicine, pharmaceuticals and equipment save lives and improve the quality of life for us all. No one can dispute these facts. But the only real way to contain these costs of these is to block the availability of these treatments. How will the latest ad greatest methods of care be available if no coverage of them is available? Of course, as costs continue to rise, taxes will rise in kind. Anyone who thinks small business and the middle class will be spared tax hikes to pay for this mistake is an ignorant fool.