Health care law does not address the real issues

<p>The Supreme Court upheld the President Obama's health care law by a narrow, uninspiring 5-4 vote last week.<br><br>While people on both sides of the issue can argue its constitutionality, the bigger issues are getting missed. The individual mandate helps increase business for the big insurance companies by coercing more healthy young people to buy expensive insurance.<br><br>Is it right for government to help line the profits of big business? Also, where is our freedom of choice? If we are forced to buy a product, why can't we shop around by allowing insurance companies to cross state lines like other forms of insurance? This would lower costs for sure. Some states only allow a monopoly of one insurance company within their borders.<br><br>Also, why is a "my way or the highway" approach being used when it comes to treatment? Most alternative or natural treatments are not allowed to be practiced by mainstream medicine (unless you pay cash outside the system) while forcing us into legal drugs or expensive cancer treatments, for example.<br><br>This is another protection of the current expensive health care industry in this country. The FDA for years has been picking winners and losers in the medical field almost always favoring the expensive drug treatments over natural, low cost non-patentable treatments. The FDA often has members of the big pharma industry on their staff. It is time to free up the medical field, not control it more.<br><br>If you are in favor of lower costs and more options in health care, then take government out of the equation. We still have a court system to prosecute the occassional bad doctor or hospital. We don't need "Big Brother" to protect the interests of the wealthy insurance companies, drug companies, and bureaucrats. It is time we allow the individual to have a supermarket of choices with a wide range of prices in health care.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court upheld the President Obama's health care law by a narrow, uninspiring 5-4 vote last week.<br /><br />While people on both sides of the issue can argue its constitutionality, the bigger issues are getting missed. The individual mandate helps increase business for the big insurance companies by coercing more healthy young people to buy expensive insurance.<br /><br />Is it right for government to help line the profits of big business? Also, where is our freedom of choice? If we are forced to buy a product, why can't we shop around by allowing insurance companies to cross state lines like other forms of insurance? This would lower costs for sure. Some states only allow a monopoly of one insurance company within their borders.<br /><br />Also, why is a "my way or the highway" approach being used when it comes to treatment? Most alternative or natural treatments are not allowed to be practiced by mainstream medicine (unless you pay cash outside the system) while forcing us into legal drugs or expensive cancer treatments, for example.<br /><br />This is another protection of the current expensive health care industry in this country. The FDA for years has been picking winners and losers in the medical field almost always favoring the expensive drug treatments over natural, low cost non-patentable treatments. The FDA often has members of the big pharma industry on their staff. It is time to free up the medical field, not control it more.<br /><br />If you are in favor of lower costs and more options in health care, then take government out of the equation. We still have a court system to prosecute the occassional bad doctor or hospital. We don't need "Big Brother" to protect the interests of the wealthy insurance companies, drug companies, and bureaucrats. It is time we allow the individual to have a supermarket of choices with a wide range of prices in health care.</p>