The Quiet Conservative September 9, 2009
Congressman Moore's Health Care Survey
When Congress adjourned for their August recess most typically hold town halls and other meet and
greets to stay in touch with their constituencies and to keep up voter interest for the next election.
Congressman Moore, however, saw how the other liberal proponents to health care were being
lambasted by angry voters upset at their possible loss of freedom. He decided to go with a survey
emailed out instead, and hid from the voters for the month. When I received the survey in my email it
didn't take long to find the format limited, biased, and a complete waste of time as it would be filed in
the round file in Congressman Moore's office (round file= trash can.)
Below is the survey with my thoughts in italics.
Dear Friend,
I am distributing this survey as a way to gather information about constituent views regarding specific
aspects of health care reform. This survey is not meant as an endorsement of any particular proposal.
Your responses to these questions will be kept confidential. Including your name and contact
information is entirely optional and will only be used to provide updates from my office on upcoming
legislation.
Please circle your response to each question.
1. Are you satisfied with your health insurance plan?
• Yes, I am satisfied with my private insurance
• Yes, I am satisfied with my combination of public and private coverage
• No
• Undecided
• I am not insured
• I am covered by a public insurance plan (like Medicare or Medicaid)
First question is fair. So far so good.
2. Do you believe that our nation’s health insurance system needs reforming?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
Well, this question doesn't qualify as a good question. Sure it needs reforming. Just about
everything in the universe could be improved. So what? What does reform mean? Is it reform to
provide federal funds for abortion? Who decides what reform actually means? The meaning could
be quite different for Organizing for America than for me.
3. Have you read any of the healthcare reform legislation currently being considered in the
House of Representatives?
• Yes
• No
• Some
Well, another bad question. There are several versions including the main house bill 3200. The
senate version isn't ready. Part of the problem Americans are dealing with is no one is owning up to
what the bill will be, and what it will say. What is available isn't encouraging. Like stereo
instructions in four different languages, which translation is actually going to be the one
implemented? Yes I've read some of the legislation, but not all of it. Because, there is no all of it yet.
People also have the sinking feeling that the Congressmen haven't read hardly any of it at all. Most
of the town halls through August found the people in the audience more well informed than their
representative.
4. What should be the most important goal in reforming our nation’s health system?
• Making private insurance more affordable for Americans, including the 47 million uninsured
individuals
• Making care more efficient by reducing waste and unnecessary treatments
• Shoring up the finances of Medicare and Medicaid
• Imposing caps on medical malpractice lawsuits
At least the Congressman's survey mentioned lawsuit reform. This is the first time I have seen
anywhere the suggestion that tort reform, a major cause of health care prices, is on the table. But it
really isn't on the table, is it? This is a sop to people and not a serious consideration. The trial
lawyers are a huge supporter of Democrats. They have no fear they are in the crosshairs. And does
anyone ever call these people on their 47 million uninsured number? Take out the illegal aliens, the
wealthy, the young and voluntarily uninsured and what number is left?
As for Medicare and Medicaid, shoring up their finances and showing fiscal responsibility should
have been done decades ago. Isn't it odd that it is only mentioned now after blowing billions in
waste? Only now that they want to spend billions more of your money do they mention cleaning up
the programs they have already mismanaged?
Finally, reducing waste and unnecessary treatments is part of what has people so fired up. Who
decides what is waste and unnecessary? A Washington bureaucrat, that's who. This is where
rationing of care comes in. Your elderly mother wants a hip transplant? No, sorry. She can take an
aspirin and here's a wheelchair. Your young son has a headache and blurry vision for the past
month? We can get you in, in six months. Hope the tumor isn't a fast grower.
Keep away from us! You, the government, by your own admission, can't run Medicare and
Medicaid. There is no indication you can run anything else better.
5. If you believe that our nation’s health insurance system needs reforming, what do you believe
is the best way to reduce the number of uninsured Americans and reduce long-term health
care costs?
• Creating a health insurance plan, administered by the federal government, to compete on a
level playing field with private insurers
• Creating nonprofit co-ops, operated by a non-governmental entity, to provide insurance to
members and compete on a level playing field with private insurance companies
• Creating a single government plan to cover every American
• Expand eligibility for existing public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
• Undecided
• No action necessary
By now the survey is obviously loaded with bias. The lead in to the question: If you believe that
our nation's health insurance system needs reforming, what do you believe is the best way to reduce
the number of uninsured Americans and reduce long-term health care costs- presumes your definition
of reform naturally matches theirs. Au Contraire. It isn't the government's role nor duty to provide
health insurance for people. Which makes these survey choices unacceptable. As was easily
demonstrated a government created insurance plan, run by the government, doesn't have a profit
motive. It doesn't have taxes, it doesn't have liabilities. This means it in no way is ever going to
compete on a level playing field. If you think that is great, then think of the view that they don't have
to be responsive, innovative, or accountable to you either.
The president himself hit the nail on the head when he compared private insurance to Fed Ex and
UPS and government health care to the post office. As for the nonprofit co-ops operated by non
governmental agencies, one only has to go so far as to look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that
sunk the housing market and damn near the economy. They were not independent at all but worked
closely with such Wylie Coyote super geniuses as Barney Frank (D)MA.
The single payer government plan is a valid cause for revolution. What the government provides,
it can take away. That is tyranny. Who thought to offer that? I would never put my family's choice of
life or death in the hands of a form, a government mandate, or a committee that answers to nobody
and yet has the power of life and death. That option is unacceptable.
As for expanding eligibility for existing programs, they cannot fund the ones they are running and
self admit they are extremely wasteful in how they administer these programs. Clean those up and
expand eligibility when you have your costs controlled. You might even be able to pay for that
expansion in the rolls by the money you saved.
Action is necessary, but not the way you offer or intend. Allow insurance to be sold across state
lines. Reform the tort laws. Then, as true competition takes hold watch health care costs drop as
real competition takes hold. Here is an example used many times. When DVD players first hit the
market in the United States the cost was over six hundred dollars. Now you can find one at Wal
Mart for thirty bucks. How did that happen? Well, first the government wasn't involved in setting
prices. Next, competition caused players to get better, more efficient, and more innovative. Now
the thirty dollar one is far more advanced than the six hundred dollar one.
6. Do you support requiring all Americans to have health insurance?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
No, of course not. Who are you to demand that? I know of no authority that allows you to dictate
how others arrange their finances. You can encourage people, educate people, make it easy to do,
but you can't mandate. You don't have the authority, the right, or the duty.
7. Do you support prohibiting insurance companies from not offering insurance to people with
preexisting conditions?
• Yes, all people should have guaranteed access to health insurance
• No, insurance companies should be able to limit coverage to people with preexisting
conditions
• Undecided
There should be no requirement to insure people with preexisting conditions. Provided that
insurance is now allowed to be purchased across state lines. In this matter the insurance industry,
no paragons of virtue, have manipulated the states into better deals for themselves. They have, like
mini countries, carved out artificial niches for themselves preventing competition. Break away the
state line barrier and the competition will fill this void. Plus, as the preexisting condition will
become less important focus can be had on insurance companies that do not pay for conditions that
develop while under their care. Chronic care is far more critical than preexisting conditions. This
too would be helped by nationwide competition. (And, the government isn't competition, as
indicated above.)
8. Do you support creating a public health insurance plan, administered by the federal
government, that would compete on a level playing field with private insurers, as long as
people could keep their current insurance if they are happy with it?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
This is as close to an out and out falsehood as it gets. A public health insurance plan can't
compete on a level playing field. So the whole question is false and the promise to keep your own
health insurance is a lie. If your employer could suddenly drop all his costs on health insurance and
throw you on the public plan, how long do you think you will keep your plan? Most Americans get
their health insurance through work. Therefore you would be automatically thrown over to the
public plan, putting the private insurers out of business. So much for a level playing field and
competition.
9. If a government-run, public health insurance option is created, do you support making the
public option widely available to all Americans, or do you support implementing a “trigger”
so it is only available in areas where choice is limited because one or two private insurers
maintain a monopoly.
• Widely available
• Trigger
• Undecided
A variation of the lie told above. If this was a valid concern they really wanted to address they
would put out a two page bill allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines and limiting
damage awards for malpractice to some limiting standard of punitive damages. It wouldn't cost the
taxpayers a dime and reform the industry while slashing costs and improving service. No wonder it
isn't being offered. This isn't about health care, it is about power and the ability to control your
lives. Any wonder Congressman Waxman's committee is going after insurance companies in an
effort to intimidate them? There is no consideration of you, this is about power to the left. This is
about socialism, not medical care.
10. Instead of creating a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers, do you
support creating a nonprofit co-op system (as described in question 5b) that would offer
insurance for members and compete with private insurers?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
No, of course not. Built on the same false premise this is simply government by proxy. When
Germany rose its military power prior to World War Two they used private industry for state
purposes. It was called "Vampire Capitalism" and if you substitute health care for, well, state run
health care, it is the same model for the same reason.
11. Do you support requiring employers with a payroll over $250,000 to contribute to their
employees’ health benefits?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
Speaking of Vampire Capitalism. This is the government's way of running a business without
running a business. The government has no right to intervene with how a company compensates its
employees. If the employee doesn't want to work there, they can leave. Where government has a
legal and ethical right to intervene is in working conditions, public health, and discrimination.
That's it. Otherwise the government is degrading the business and hurting the chances of the
employers to employ more people. If two companies are hiring and one offers health insurance and
the other doesn't, who will get the better employees? What if one person wants to work and take
home more money instead of having insurance because their spouse already has insurance. Does
the company still have to give the employee insurance? Or do they have to pay a fine or give the
money to the government? I think you can guess how it is structured.
12. Do you support passing health care reform even if it will add to our nation’s federal deficit, or do
you only support passing health reform if it is revenue neutral and does not add to the
deficit?
• Yes, implement health reform even if it adds to the deficit
• No, only implement health reform if it is revenue neutral and does not add to the deficit
• Undecided
• I do not support any health care reform, regardless of the cost
A better question. It is a straightforward request for how people view the potential cost of health
reform. However, it presumes that reforming health care is a monetary issue. It isn't. Allow
insurance to be purchased across state lines and reform tort laws and see how the costs are
impacted without input by the taxpayer.
13. Roughly 164 million of Americans receive their health insurance from their employers. Do
you support taxing employer provided benefits to help finance healthcare reform?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
You mean the very thing the Democrats nailed McCain with during the campaign they are
intending to impose? If someone was of a cynical mind they might think of Democrats in
Washington as hypocrites. But enough with the taxes. No nation ever taxed itself to prosperity.
How about cutting whole federal government departments and devolving responsibility to the states?
That would cut costs of operation which could be put forward to cutting the deficit. Plus, reform the
existing programs you mention and save money there. Leave the taxpayer alone.
14. Do you support imposing a surcharge on families making over $1 million, rather than taxing
employer provided benefits, to help pay for healthcare reform?
• Yes
• No
• Undecided
Ah, the old Communist ploy of class warfare. SOAK THE RICH UNTIL THERE ARE NO RICH
NO MORE! Then of course, we'll move on to the well to do, the middle class, the professional class,
the working class, the schmo working at a drive through, and people who own cardigan sweaters or
more than one pair of shoes. There is always someone you can vilify to push your agenda. I say
instead, let's make more millionaires! Money is great! Cut taxes and regulations and fire up the
economy! A rising tide floats all boats. Why is it, in a country so prosperous, generous, inventive,
hardworking, and free, that being poor and miserable is seen as something virtuous?
15. Please describe your general philosophy on healthcare, health insurance reform, and share
with me any other thoughts you have that are important on this issue. Thank you!
It is none of your business. Get out of it. Allow insurance across state lines. Reform tort laws.
Then, privatize Medicaid and Medicare.
A lot of terms have been used to describe health reform proposals. I am curious – when you hear
the terms listed below, what do you believe is the meaning and/or definition? There are no right
or wrong answers, I am just trying to gauge constituent viewpoints.
16. Single Payer: Long lines. Numerous forms. Death panels. Unaccountable rules and procedures
that restrict care. Death to people who would otherwise live. Abortion on demand, and promoted
too-even mandated. The elimination of any conscience clause for people who don't like murdering
other human beings.
17. Socialized medicine: Life or death put in the hands of the government. Loss of freedom. The
demise of America as a nation of individuals. Now it becomes a nation dependent on the whims of
government for decisions of life or death.
18. Public Option: Single payer and Socialized medicine.
19. Universal Coverage: Single Payer, Socialized medicine, public option, and whatever you want to
call the same thing but by a different name. Sort of like liberal= progressive= socialist=
communist= fascist= any collectivist philosophy that values the state or the group over the
individual.
20. Health Care status quo: A false choice presented by people intent on socializing medicine.
Reform insurance by allowing true competition between private industry players, not the
government, and reform tort laws so doctors aren't required to pay out so much in insurance
themselves. Watch prices drop at no cost to the taxpayer and at no loss of freedom or potential for
death.