Chuck Norris

--Fourth, universal health care ultimately would limit the competitive market of health care.

And what about for the taxpayers who would pay for the program? Would having universal health care encourage their future productivity? Further taxing members of the upper class (which would mean further penalizing their productivity) certainly would not provide incentive for Americans chasing the American dream. And their added taxes obviously would trickle down to consumers, as well. Or do we just assume they would pay 47 million Americans' universal health care out of their surpluses?

You don't create competitive markets by creating monopolies, yet that is exactly what government-run universal health care would prevent: competition. If government should do anything, it should crack down on medical insurance monopolies. If government wants to regulate one more thing, it would be better to regulate the medical insurance companies, not the American people.

--Fifth, universal health care ultimately would transform legislators into quasi health care practitioners.

With government-sanctioned universal health care, legislators would become quasi medical practitioners because they would lead and guide the government-controlled medical boards, personnel and policies that would oversee the program. That would include abortive and end-of-life counsel and services. Federal politicians would rely upon relatively few chief physicians (appointed mostly by them), who in turn would oversee and implement the medical policies and procedures that they felt were best for the country.

--Sixth, universal health care would increase big government, and America would continue on the slippery slope toward socialism.

The nanny state is not our solution to better health. Our government already provides two medical coverage programs: Medicare (for senior citizens) and Medicaid (for low-income citizens). The president mentioned in his speech last week that those two programs are the greatest contributors to our skyrocketing deficit. So why not reform, improve and enhance those programs rather than create a third (or fourth or fifth) government medical bureaucracy called "universal health care"?

What is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care program that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices or ration health care.

Why wait for Washington? Go to to learn more about how you and your local community can reform health care and keep your options for doctors and medical care. And mostly, go to the Web site of Dr. Betsy McCaughey at She is a health policy expert and former lieutenant governor of New York and actually has read the entire Senate bill on universal health care. She is disclosing many hidden details within it that are not being discussed with the American public.

Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.