Choice and Competition and Government

As reported by the Associated Press, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, "What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market."

I was not aware that there were no choices existing at present.

Nor was I aware that there was no competition.

As I search the web there are a vast number of insurance companies and when one looks through the healthcare plans offered it seems there are many from which to choose.

What I do understand is that the cost of insurance is becoming higher and higher.

And what I also understand is that there are no elected representatives willing to tackle Tort Reform in an attempt to curtail the rising cost of insurance.

Why is it that people, speaking particularly of politicians at this point, have to make things overly complex and employ smoke and mirrors.

An example of overly complex is that reforming the healthcare system requires that government must enter that field (which, perhaps, may not now be the case, unless, of course, that portion of reform is tacked back into the bill at actual voting time) to ensure people have a choice.

And the smoke and mirrors utilized in this endeavor are ample. One of the best is stating that healthcare reform is necessary for our economic recovery. That is such a blatant lie it is laughable, except that we are dealing with taxing, literally, the resources of every taxpaying citizen of Main Street USA.

It is also worthy of note that AP describes the Obama administration "embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan" decision as "Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats."

Bowing to the other political party…offering cover to your own party?

What ever happened to what the people (those residents Main Street USA) want and do not want? Those who do not want more government, do not want to end up paying for every little thing some politician wants to get in his/her district (i.e., earmarks), do not want government to make decisions for us, etcetera?

What ever happened to the people in the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" equation?

While it is true that our Founding Fathers could not have envisioned life and all of its intricacies in the 21st Century, they did certainly have a handle on people and government and what people in government could attempt.

One example of this knowledge of humankind is from John Adams, "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

Another, from James Madison: "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Perhaps each and every one of our elected officials (and their appointed and hired staff) should be required to do a refresher course in Government 101, as taught by our Founding Fathers, prior to accepting their post, their post of public trust.

Over For Now,

Main Street One