Socialized Medicine Inches Closer
Neal Boortz
Wednesday, June 27, 2001
The socialists have won one. The Democrats have defeated an amendment to the so-called "Patients' Bill of Rights" that would have protected employers from health care-related lawsuits. I can promise you that today many small- and medium-sized businessmen are making plans to eliminate health insurance coverage for their employees – and many more future employers will never even consider a health plan for their employees. The risk just won't be worth it.
An example? Here's part of an e-mail I received last night from a listener:
"I heard about the vote in the Senate today that allows employees to sue their employers. If President Bush signs this into law, I've decided to save possible problems by not offering my employees insurance. I will also very carefully explain why I am taking this action to my employees. Maybe the people who work for me might get it. If this goes into law the only entity that can offer insurance without the chance of getting sued under this law is the government. Sure looks like a good crop of votes coming up for the Democrats."
There were more e-mails like this one. More businessmen and women who said that they were either going to drop their health insurance coverage for their employees, or end any consideration of instituting such a plan.
Here's another angle for you. Many larger companies are self-insured. They have so many employees they find it easier to create and administer their own health-care "insurance" program for their workers. It's all economics. These companies have found that the amount of money they pay for employee health care would be less than the total premiums they would pay to cover their employees under a commercial insurance program.
The amendment the Democrats defeated yesterday would have specifically exempted these companies – but now they are going to face the possibilities of lawsuits. These companies now know that they will be in the crosshairs of predatory trial attorneys. They're large companies, with a lot of money. These companies don't want to become involved in hideously expensive medical malpractice lawsuits. They will have two viable options.
Option one. These companies can just drop the coverage altogether. They can increase the wages of their employees by an amount equal to the pro rata cost of the self-insurance program and send the employees out there to get their own insurance policies. The Democrats anticipated this possible move and defeated an amendment last week that would have made the premiums for those individual policies tax deductible. Under no circumstances can leftists ever take any action that would allow any citizen to become more self-sufficient. Self-sufficient people don't need Democrats.
Option two. These companies will find a health insurance provider for their employees. The health care costs to the companies will increase and the increase will be reflected in employee wages, or the reduction of other benefits.
Now – one more thing. We're going to see a new type of insurance policy out there. Employers who provide their employees with insurance coverage will be purchasing a separate insurance policy to protect them against lawsuits. The premium will be high – and it will be a cost that is passed on to employees.
How Much More Obvious Could This Be?
A question for you. How many of you have ever considered the idea of actually suing your employer for any damages resulting from your medical care? The answer – probably none. It probably never occurred to you.
So, just how did this bit about suing employers come about? Well, it's hard to pin down with certainty, but we can build a plausible scenario.
Plaintiffs' lawyers know that huge awards can be extorted or won from employers through discrimination and other lawsuits. Perhaps they have been a bit frustrated that they could not bring these employers into the courts when they were filing medical malpractice lawsuits. Clearly, something needed to be done to open the door to suing employers who provide health insurance. Just open the door a little … that's all the lawyers need. Just a crack. Give them that tiny little crack and they find an activist judge who will kick the door wide open for them – and the assault can begin.
So, how to open that little crack? Easy! Get their Democrat friends in Congress to do it for them! Get some legislation enacted that will allow employees to sue employers in medical matters. Just a tiny little crack! The lawyers and judges can take it from there!
Believe me, these trial lawyers make one big pile of money. North Carolina Democratic senator John Edwards is one of them. He made a fortune being a trial attorney … then spent $6 million of that money to buy his seat in the U.S. Senate in 1998. Then, what's the first thing he does? He tries to open the vault for his fellow trial attorneys!!!!! Edwards' net worth, by the way, is about $50 million.
Why are the Democrats so eager to see the employers exposed to the trial lawyers? Two reasons: First, trial lawyers donate big bucks – tens of millions – to political campaigns, and over 90 percent of those millions go to Democrats.
And the second reason? Power! Pure, simple, unadulterated power. For over 50 years Democrats have had a single-minded purpose of creating a national health care system in this country. Call it what it is – socialized medicine. Democrats know that a great deal of influence and power can be wielded over a person if you control that person's access to health care. Any proposal that has the possibility of upheaval and chaos in health care is a proposal that Democrats can learn to love. Chaos and upheaval lead to demands for control and solutions – and those demands are made on government. Just what the Democrats want to hear.
So, with yesterday's actions in the Senate, we're one step closer to socialized medicine. One step closer to your total dependence on government for your health care. One step closer to a Democratic nirvana!
You Think I'm Overreacting?
I'm sure some of you think that I'm totally off base on this "right to sue your employer" issue. You think this Patients' Bill of Rights legislation could never lead to the type of abuses I'm proposing.
Remember the Americans With Disabilities Act? Many of us made the same warnings when this legislation was first proposed a decade or so ago. "Idiotic and absurd costly lawsuits!" we said. "No way," responded the proponents.
Well, try this one on. Cleveland Merritt worked for Palm Beach County in Florida. Merritt is colorblind. He can't tell the difference between red and green.
So, what was Merritt's job with Palm Beach County? He serviced traffic lights. Red and green traffic lights. When his employer discovered he couldn't tell the difference between the red and the green lights, he was let go.
Discrimination!
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found that the county violated the Americans With Disabilities Act when they fired Merritt. He is now suing. Trial is scheduled for October.
Now, when the ADA was being debated in Congress, if I had gone on the air and told you that an employee's job required him to discern the difference between a red light and a green light, and if that employee was fired because he couldn't tell the difference because of colorblindness and he would then be able to sue under the ADA – you would have told me that I was nuts.
Go ahead – just keep your heads in the sand. It's so safe there.
July 9 Is 'Buy a Gun Day'
As you probably know, the United Nations is getting set to host a conference next month. It's a conference where governments and activist groups will come together to discuss the illicit arms trade.
Oh, that's good, you think. They're going to discuss ways of shutting down gun smugglers, right?
Wrong. To the U.N., ANY firearm in the hands of a private individual is an illicit gun.
To this end, some group calling itself the International Action Network on Small Arms wants to make July 9 "Small Arms Destruction Day." On July 9, the opening day of the conference, governments are asked to organize "public events of destruction of small arms and light weapons."
Those of you who support the right of law-abiding individuals to own guns will also know that there's a growing movement to mark July 9 as "Buy a Gun Day." If you've been saving up for a handgun, rifle or shotgun, consider waiting until July 9 to make your purchase. If you don't have the money to buy a gun, consider buying some kind of gun accessory. Counter the U.N officials who want to see every man, woman and child stripped of their best means of self-defense.
It's your choice. On July 9, you can either buy a gun for self-defense, or you can destroy a gun that could have been used for self-defense. Do whichever makes you feel safer.
ABC Kills John Stossel Interview Footage
John Stossel's employers have caved in to parents and environmentalists.
Citing a wish to "respect the parents' wishes," ABC pulled footage of interviews with children from Stossel's upcoming special, which airs at 10 p.m. Friday. The special explains how environmentalists' claims have been blown out of proportion. Stossel will now have to find other footage – or conduct new interviews – to fill the time.
What's the big deal? Seven parents raised holy hell, claiming that Stossel had misled their children with his questions. They said they hadn't been informed that Stossel was involved. They believe Stossel asked the children leading questions to support his views.
Yeah ... like the environmentalists NEVER ask leading questions to support their own views. They'd never try to mislead the American public, would they?
That's not all. These seven whining parents are working with the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider is publicly wondering "how people who had no complaints discovered they had complaints after they had been contacted by activists."
How, indeed? Did the Environmental Working Group seek out these parents in the same way class-action lawyers seek out "victims" for their cases against big corporations?
Given that environmentalists nationwide stand to lose money and support if the American people believe John Stossel, would you put it past them to attack his special any way they can?
The Race Card Conquers All
A couple of weeks ago I brought you the story of an athletic conference of 20 Catholic schools in Chicago. They were asked to vote on whether to admit St. Sabina, a school located in an inner city neighborhood. The vote was 11 to 9 against admitting St. Sabina.
The school's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, immediately shouted racism! Racism! All those wealthy white parents didn't want their kids exposed to all those black people.
Fact is, the crime rate in the area surrounding St. Sabina is very high, and most of the schools in the league cited concerns for the safety of their students and parents.
Pastors from the schools pushed for a new vote. This time, the vote wouldn't be a blind vote. Everyone would know how each school voted. The pastors also intended to involve the head of the Archdiocese of Chicago's Office for Racial Justice.
The re-vote was held on June 20. The results of the new, non-blind vote? The schools voted unanimously in favor of admitting St. Sabina.
It's so easy to get what you want by crying racism. And it's sad to see these schools bow down so easily to racial intimidation.
Neal Boortz is the hugely popular nationally syndicated radio host.
newsmax.com |
