Kathleen, I've Got a Feeling You're Still in Kansas; Republicans Embrace Big-Government Health Care Sebelius Left Behind

Article excerpt

Byline: Dr. Milton R. Wolf, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Liberals are a curious breed. They actually believe the government can mandate you into prosperity. They wave a magic wand, and the universe bends to their whim. At the end of each day, they rest their weary heads blissfully - willfully - unaware of the damage they cause.

Witness Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Before she was wielding the iron fist of power granted to her by Obamacare, she was the Kansas' governor and, before that, the Kansas insurance commissioner. Health insurance mandates were her stock in trade, and with each new government dictate, Kansans saw their premiums increase. No matter how well-intentioned, the very nature of a mandate is that it forces consumers to buy something they don't want, or why the need for a mandate? It's unavoidable, then, that Kansas families' costs increased and many simply could no longer afford insurance.

The net result? Mrs. Sebelius chased nearly a dozen health insurance companies out of the state, leaving behind 40,000 Kansans who no longer had health insurance. That President Obama would choose her to head HHS and implement Obamacare is telling and terrifying.

I reject the demonstrably destructive government-mandate approach to health care. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sebelius' ghost still haunts Kansas, and it's the Republicans who are giving it life.

The Republican-dominated Kansas House of Representatives recently passed yet another Sebelius-style health insurance mandate, by an overwhelming margin, 92-30. The party that claims to stand against government-run health care is nonetheless voting for the government to run health care. The Republican-controlled Senate will take up the issue and, presumably, send it to Republican Gov. (and former presidential aspirant) Sam Brownback.

Proponents of these health care mandates always have sympathy on their side, and often good intentions, but little else. This particular mandate favors autistic children, and who doesn't feel compelled to help anyone in need, particularly a child? Yet, as these politically popular mandates are imposed and health insurance premiums skyrocket, patients (and their family budgets) suffer.

I've been asked, by self-described conservatives, no less, how I can turn my back on children with autism. Excuse me? Having dedicated my life to serving patients and, like most doctors - and this is not an exaggeration - having freely donated my time to the needy probably every single day I work, I know their question reflects more upon them than me. But I also realize it is emotional appeals like this that quickly persuade squishy conservatives to do the bidding of big-government liberals. But the response to this tactic should be obvious.

How can the supporters of government mandates turn their backs on mothers with breast cancer or grandfathers with strokes or children with leukemia? …