Obamacare repeal and Gabrielle Giffords

Some of the more partisan Democrats are still trying to use the Tucson shooting incident to political advantage, claiming that it isn’t appropriate now to bring up Obamacare repeal. But I think it is very appropriate. Republicans need to protect our existing excellent health care system that has saved Gabrielle Giffords’ life.

I listened to one of the physicians who attended Congresswoman Giffords. He explained how the bullet traveled the length of her brain, entering her skull in the rear and exiting in the front. Remarkably, she was still alive when she was taken to the hospital. To guard against further brain damage, half of her skull was removed and placed under refrigeration. This would prevent any buildup of pressure inside the brain from the swelling that naturally accompanies the inflammatory response. It truly highlights the marvels of the American health care system.

Those who truly understand research and innovation know that it flourishes in an atmosphere of freedom. The more market forces are allowed to work, the more that innovation and research are rewarded according to the value they impart to society. Many of us believe that if the United States had a system of government-controlled health care, it would slow down research and innovation. So I think it is entirely appropriate that Congress move to repeal Obamacare, to preserve the existing excellent health care system we enjoy, so that future victims of violence like Gabrielle Giffords can reap the benefits of future advances in health care.


About mesasmiles

By Dr. David Hall. Dr. Hall runs Infinity Dental Web, a small company that does Internet marketing for dentists. He has had a long-standing interest in politics and as a college student toyed with the idea of a political career.
This entry was posted in Health Care, Tucson Shooting and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Obamacare repeal and Gabrielle Giffords

  1. samantha higgins says:

    What if some of those shot Saturday had been uninsured because they had recently lost their jobs or had been unable to get insurance because they had pre-existing conditions? Should they be left to die? Should they have to face bankruptcy? Just asking.

    Comment by David Hall:
    You know, Samantha, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of people being left to die because they didn’t have insurance. Not in my America.

  2. Patricia Boyle says:

    The statement “… our existing excellent health care system that has saved Gabrielle Giffords’ life” is totally false!

    You must be kidding – repeal the new health care law. It is erroneous to state that the treatment Mrs. Giffords received is ONLY available in the old USA health care system. I live in Canada and we have your so called “Obamacare” health care system. My friend had a massive stroke which necessitated the removal of the top of his skull to relieve the pressure. His TOTAL treatment, including extended stay at a rehabilitation hospital, was PAID FOR by the government. We pay taxes and that money is used to run our healthcare system. Everybody – celebrity, government official, and the common person – is entitled to the best care.

    Don’t mix your political views with the actual delivery of health care. If the middle-income family in the USA had been subjected to a crisis such as the Giffords one and required the same treatment, the person might receive the treatment but WOULD NOT be able to pay for it – sell his house? forfeit his kids’ education?

    Comment by David Hall,
    Patricia, you’re doing the old switcheroo technique as part of your argument. Re-read what I said. I never said that this type of care is only available in the United States. I said that research and innovation flourish in a free market. The research and innovation happens mostly in the United States. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, spend billions on research on miracle drugs. They pay for the research with their U.S. profits, made possible by our relatively free markets. Then they ship them across the border where the Canadian government forces them to sell for lower prices.

    The American people, by a wide margin, don’t want the Canadian health care system here. And if the Democrats had tried to sell Obamacare as a copy of your system, we all know it would have gone down in flames.

    My wife and I had two of our children when I was still a student and couldn’t afford it. And the third we couldn’t afford either. We got great health care for each childbirth. In the last case, the hospital frankly forgave a large portion of the bill upon my demonstration of our hardship. But you know, in all my dealings with government bureaucrats over six decades of life, I’ve never found even half as much of a “customer service” mentality among them as I find in your average WalMart. Or in any private hospital I’ve ever had dealings with.

  3. Jennifer Saralidge says:

    This country needs to flourish. That is what the American Dream is all about. Without it we are nothing. Obamacare is bad for America and bad for tax paying citizens. Join the only REAL repeal petition and stop Obamacare.
    Click here to take the pledge.

    Comment by David Hall:
    Sounds good to me. I’ll sign.

  4. James says:

    Your rhetorical connection between free markets and research fails a major evidence test. Either university staff or the private sector does the vast majority of all medical research done in the United States and most other western nations. Changing over to a national option-, which is where the consumer inner-sects with research- WILL NOT change a bloody thing about how the research is conducted. What you have said is akin to saying that if the US Government would take over the management of Ford Motor Works, then the university professors would all of a sudden start teaching mechanical engineers that 2 + 2 = 5. The metaphor is apt because the connection between medical researcher and the medical treatment provider is almost non-existent. Plus, it is just daffy to think that the US government is going to take over the whole medical industry. This whole thing is about insurance- not about research grants, which only make-up a small portion of medical research financing anyway. If you do not believe that, simply look around at the vast number of privately owned medical research laboratories all over the country. There are several thousands of them.

    Either way, this has nothing to do with Giffords- accept perhaps to wonder if she would have received such good care if she did not have a no-spending-cap insurance policy backed by the Fed. I seriously doubt it.

    James,
    You seriously doubt it? I seriously believe it. I had a son who required open-heart surgery at the age of three months, and we didn’t have a no-spending-cap insurance policy. He got miraculous care that saved his life.

    You people who hate the free market system, I think it’s a shame. Fortunately, you’re a small minority of Americans. Why is the United States the undisputed leader in technology and research, as well as the most prosperous nation on the face of the earth? Almost all our people come from other countries. Why couldn’t they do the same things in their own countries? Why do they come here, anyway? I believe it’s because of our free market system. And I think I have lots of company in that belief.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *