Written by the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked Americans to “speak with others, and not on display” as the health care debate moves forward.

I could not agree more. We will make arguments on the other side, and we Americans are allowing themselves to decide whether the Democrats’ health care proposals must be right.

Approximately 45 years ago, Ronald Reagan said “nobody in this country should be denied medical care due to a lack of funding.” Our commitment everyone knows we have to care for the elderly, young and sick. We are stronger with us when we are among the poorest.

We also know that our current health system loads too often individuals and businesses, especially small businesses-with crippling costs. And we know that the health of the government permit to continue spending at current prices will only add to our increasing deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care they received while the cost of health care to reduce? The comments made by Democrats in Washington are all in the beginning: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I basically agree.

Common sense tells us that government efforts to solve the biggest problems often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that from top to bottom, one size fits all “plan will improve the functioning of a national health system of care that represents a sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us that We should be skeptical when President Obama has promised that the Democratic proposal “a greater stability and security will be provided to all Americans.”

With all due respect, Americans are accustomed to this kind of promise sweeping Washington. And we know from experience that it is a promise from Washington can not keep.

Let’s talk details. Times In his opinion, the president said that the Democrats’ proposal “the clouds will ultimately health costs under control will” by “cutting … Wastage and inefficiency in the federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies …. ”

First, ask yourself if the government that we as “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidy” First, it is believed that if he says this time will make things right. Nonpartistan The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does not do not think so: The director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that was reported as the nature of the fundamental changes that would reduce the need for job the federal health spending by a significant amount. ”

See now in a way Obama would eliminate inefficiency and waste, it has asked Congress to create a Medicare Independent Advisory JEOPARDY unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts to contain Medicare costs. In an interview with The New York Times in April, the Chairman suggested that this group, who work outside “the normal channels of politics, the” decisions regarding the “major driver of costs … The Guide chronically ill and that by the end of their lives ….

Given such statements, it is not surprising that many of the sick and elderly people are worried that the Democrats proposal will ultimately lead to rationing of health care-I dare say that the panels of the dead? Establishing vote overturned that sentence, but it rang a lot of money for Americans. Working through “normal channels of politics,” says of him, and as a result is unlikely that the Congress a proposal to authorize the wrong end of his life in this cost-reduction counseling context rejected. But the fact is that Democrats have proposed non-elected bureaucrats are empowered to make decisions that make life or death health care issues. Excess government is that we have come to expect from the government.

Speaking of the government overreaching, what the Democrats proposed impact on the deficit? CBO estimates, not the current House proposal is not only a reduction of the deficit, but it will actually increase by 239 billion U.S. dollar in 10 years. Only in Washington could find a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit is to be hailed as a cost cutting measure.

The economic consequences are not confined to abstract deficit numbers, but they will reach into the pockets of Americans every day. If the Democrats’ proposals to expand health coverage while failing to contain health care inflation rates, smaller paychecks followed. A new study by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, by Steven Nyce and Schieber syl concluded that if the government extends the coverage of health care, while health care inflation continues to grow, rising costs lead to low wages available in most of the earnings spectrum Despite the declines would be more pronounced for low-income workers. “Wages are low, the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argued in his editorial that the Democrats’ proposals “give every American with a few basic consumer protection, which eventually wear out the insurance companies responsible. “Naturally, consumer protection seems like a good idea. The institutions and it is true that insurance companies can be irresponsible and not respond, just as the federal government. This similarity makes the shift of focus seems nothing more than an attempt to attention to divert from the details of the proposed Democratic proposal to a larger deficit, lower our wages, and increasing the power of the government technocrats unaccountable.

In place of the poll-driven “solutions”, we talk about real reform of health care: market orientation, patient-centered and outcome-driven. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and others have argued, this policy includes that all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who receive coverage through their employers, providing Medicare beneficiaries with vouchers that allow them to buy their own coverage, the reform of civil liability laws for possible save billions each year in unnecessary costs and changes in state regulations that people take security over state lines to buy. Instead of another plan up and down in the government, we will give Americans control over their own health.

The Democrats have never seriously considered these ideas, rather than walking through their own proposals for the dispute. After all, doing what they do not need Republicans to sign on: the Democrats control the House, Senate and Presidency. But if passed, the Democrats proposed to significantly change, a large sector of our economy. This will improve our health. It will not save money. And despite what the president says he will not “more stability and security to all Americans.”

Often we hear so exaggerated promises from Washington. With the first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, I say that this time we know not to buy.