The real problem with the healthcare system

If Congress is really interested in solving the healthcare crisis in this country they would stopped medical “scalping”. Recently on NBC Nightly News there was a report on third party companies that set themselves up as middlemen in the medical supplies game. They showed a cancer drug that the manufacturer charges $12.00 a vial for, that had been marked up by medical scalpers to over $900.00.

This is one of the many reasons that healthcare is so expensive in this country. There apparently are no regulations preventing this type of profiteering. Hospitals and other service providers routinely double-(or even triple)bill for services received. Or they charge for services that were not rendered. This is especially true in the cases of people who have insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. These service providers feel that if someone else is paying then no harm no foul. Most people with insurance don’t read the itemized bill to insure that they are being charged properly. They have insurance so the big companies will foot the bill. This of course drives up premiums for the rest of their customers.

When Congress passed Obamacare they did little if anything to stop these insane and immoral practices. Instead they simply tried to force everyone to drop their drawers and take it, spreading the same costs around. The problem with this mentality is that because it does nothing to address the underlying one of the causes of spiraling healthcare costs, medical scalping, it will only exacerbate the situation. Instead they passed a bill that will most likely be found unconstitutional. However we have laws against scalping and price gouging and they have NOT been found to be unconstitutional.

This lack of intelligence in lawmaking shows that the healthcare bill was really about vote buying and control of the American public. Both major parties receive campaign contributions from some of the companies and they certainly are not going to endanger their revenue streams by actually making good law.

We need a new Congress that’s smart enough and morally strong enough to say no, and yes when absolutely necessary.

Parents Television Council--A danger to liberty

I am no fan of the Osbourne family. I didn't like their show on MTV and I have no intention of watching their new show on Fox. They are fouled-mouthed celebrities with nothing better to do than to waste the time of those who do watch their shows.

That being said I had to roll my eyes today when I read that the Parents Television Council has sicced the dogs on Fox because of the Osbourne's new variety show. This is one of the groups that sit around watching a television show or a movie so that "you won't have to". People in groups like this either don't agree with people of free-will or they don't know about the channel or power buttons on their remote control.

Now it's one thing if a group of concerned parents ban together to help other like-minded parents to filter what their own children see. It's quite another thing when these groups are too lazy to turn the channel or better yet turn off the TV altogether. When the latter is the case these types of organizations tend to try to use the police powers of the government to force networks and stations to stop showing content that they find objectionable. The interesting thing about these kinds of groups is that there are similar groups on both sides of the political aisle. However, they are equally dangerous.

For every conservative group like the Parents Television Council, there are at least an equal number of liberal groups, like Newshounds ("We watch Fox [News] so you don't have to"), that pop up on the left. They are both dangerous to free-speech, especially when they try to force a network to pull a show using the government as a tool, or when they try to recreate the falsely named "Fairness Doctrine" to allegedly give equal time to opposing viewpoints. One tries to eliminate what they feel is objectionable programming outright. The other tries to manipulate the rules in such a fashion as to make it nearly impossible to air content due to oppressive regulation and the need to give all opposing views equal air time, whether or not sponsors will buy time for those views or not. Both are dangerous in a free society because they stifle free expression.

SOURCE: E! Online article