Is health care about "controlling the people"? Is that bad?

Obamacare according to John Dingell

I've not been a big fan of the health care reform package that has just been signed by the President. First, anytime $1 trillion worth of legislation is passed completely upon partisan lines, the political machines are in need of check, at least in my humble opinion. Second, even the President has stated that nothing will save the US health care system until America's diet and end of life health care spending is far better controlled.

Well, it seems that healthcare reform is the first step towards controlling the diet and lifestyle of Americans, at least according to Michigan Democrat, John Dingell.

Is that bad? Should healthcare be implemented in a way that forces Americans to except a more healthy diet and lifestyle - a diet that both lengthens life and saves the US economy? Or, despite the good intentions, is individual freedom more important than the state?

Regardless, if this is the ultimate direction of healthcare, the fact that there is no bipartisan support suggests to me that it is STILL time to vote against the incumbents, regardless of party.

Obama health care obsession killing America?

Another crisis now "inevitable"

Health care is going to bankrupt America?

Perhaps, if things don't change significantly in the coming years and decades, but we might not have to worry if the President and Congress stay on their current path.

Without more stringent financial system reforms, "another crisis – a bigger crisis that weakens both our financial sector and our larger economy – is more than predictable, it is inevitable," claims a Report commissioned by the nonpartisan Roosevelt Institute.

While Congress is set to vote on regulatory reform proposals essentially crafted by Democrats, a plethora of bipartisan experts are warning that the current bill "must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high-risk investing that precipitated the near-collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008."

Instead, health care and Toyotagate have controlled the attention of Congress and the President. Assuredly, both are serious issues, but are they the most serious issues facing America right now? Even worse, when Democrats have focused on financial reform, their focus has mostly been limited to consumer protections.

Yet, Today's Investor's Business Daily, for instance, claims that consumer protections had nothing to do with the previous crisis. That might not mean much coming from a pro-business publication on its own, however, the Roosevelt Institute report strongly confirms much of IBD's contention. Ultimately, it's not necessarily that consumer protection laws aren't worthy of reform, although IBD does make that assertion, it's that such reforms will do little - if anything - to prevent the financial system from causing an even greater crisis now that there are fewer banks.

"Risk-taking at banks," LOUDLY warns the Roosevelt Report, "will soon be larger than ever."

As ABC paraphrases, "The report warns that the country is now immersed in a "doomsday cycle" wherein banks use borrowed money to take massive risks in an attempt to pay big dividends to shareholders and big bonuses to management – and when the risks go wrong, the banks receive taxpayer bailouts from the government."

Yet, Congress has done and is doing little to prevent this problem.

Obviously, health care is an important topic that must be addressed, but now is not the time to make health care the Administration's central focus. Besides, with so much low-hanging, bi-partisan fruit on the health care tree, why not just pick it? Let's just get health care reform rolling. Even a baby step can quickly turn into a sprint.

For now, let's just make sure that the loopholes in our financial system don't destroy the American economy long before any health care reforms can lead to any financial gains.