We know who supports these changes, and that their motivations are not pure. The insurance industry supports the plan because it would bring in new customers to make up for the additional cost of covering pre-existing illness cases. The drug companies go along because they could sell more drugs to more insured people. The American Medical Association - but not most doctors - supports it because the AMA gets money from the government. The AARP supports it - and tries to convince seniors that it is to their benefit (it isn't) - because AARP makes money selling insurance.
Another group of supporters includes the very rich. They have so much money that nothing much the government does will affect them, and their posturing lets them pretend to be caring and altruistic.
Another supportive group is the intelligentsia, who think that the lives of people who live outside the sheltered Ivy League halls should follow paths prescribed by their betters. The elite have the advantage of looking at the situation from on high, without considering the effects on real people.
Then, there are the "share the wealth" enthusiasts who don't want us to understand that what the government gives to one will have been forcibly taken away from another. These closet socialists want to believe that prudent and industrious people will eagerly give their earnings to those who are not prudent or industrious.
Finally, there are the politicians, whose shameful secretiveness and corruption have been fully exposed.
What are the things we don't know? If our system is broken, what exactly is the problem? If it is cost, how can expanding it make it less expensive? If 16 percent of our GDP is too much to spend on health, what would it be better spent on? Is it simply a lack of insurance coverage? How many people are actually being denied medical treatment for lack of insurance? Will the people who now rely on hospital emergency facilities be willing to wait for weeks to be seen at doctors' offices? If insurance becomes universal, who will pay for it?
Does anyone think the insurance companies will absorb the costs? Is coverage mandated by the government risk-based insurance or simply a government pledge to pay with money it does not have - think Medicare?
Why is medical treatment so costly? Are hospitals and physicians growing unreasonably rich? To save money, do we want to give up the MRIs and other sophisticated technologies? Medications are expensive, but will attacking drug company profits result in fewer improved medicines in the future? Why is malpractice insurance so burdensome, and how much could tort reform save?
Is it a surprise that medical costs are much higher for older people? Are we willing to limit those costs by restricting treatment for the elderly? Preventive care probably benefits individuals, but does it actually save money? Will allowing health insurance across state lines be a universal good, or result in some people paying more and some paying less? Can we save money by removing non-essential treatments from insurance coverage? Is there any reason to believe that the government can manage anything more efficiently than the private sector?
What do we know? We know that the current proposal has been conglomerated in back rooms, leaving citizens in the dark. We know that much of its support comes from groups with selfish motives unrelated to the good of the country. What do we not know? Other than political opportunism, we are not clear as to what the desired results of the proposed legislation would be. Is there any likelihood that it would be net benefit to the country?
In addition, can anyone reliably assess the unintended consequences to our health care system that would be brought on by this massive and corrupt boondoggle? The things we know about the present "reforms" are very scary. The many things we don't yet know are even more frightening.
Rod Paramoure is a retired military officer, educator and historian living in east Cobb.













Follow us on Twitter!