Conservative's Conscience

Healthcare and a Few Stubborn Facts

The House of Representatives is about to complete its version of what a national healthcare program should look like.  It is humorously entitled "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009."  Typical statements in support of it include:

• It will decrease the federal deficit and national debt.
• Everybody will be included.
• There will be no rationing of care.
• The Obama administration does not want to nationalize healthcare.

It is not the intention here to examine the House bill, or the taxes levied to support it.  That would be, at best, premature since, whatever it is, it won't remain in its current form when the Senate gets through with it  -- if the Senate gets through with it.

Instead, a few basic questions will be asked, questions that sometimes appear to have been completely overlooked.

Is the Obama approach, currently articulated by the House, the only response to the need for a change in the healthcare system?

Of course not.  To say so is nothing more than another example of the rhetorical skill of President Obama, which, unfortunately, he often uses to mislead. 

It's a clever technique.  First, he cites a commonly acknowledged fact: The healthcare system is too costly and does not serve some citizens well.  Second, he proposes his broad plan for change, with few particulars.  Third, he accuses those who oppose him as preferring the status quo -- as being opposed to change. 

That is flawed reasoning deliberately delivered to obfuscate the issue.  The opposition has been warning for years that the healthcare system, as currently financed, is unaffordable and will go broke if not structurally changed. 

What is the relationship of history to current day problems?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  So said George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher.  This simple and obvious wisdom can be specifically related to the current Medicare problem, which has suddenly energized the Democratic Party to fever pitch, a party that previously made Medicare and Social Security the third rail of national politics -- touch them and, politically, you will be destroyed.

The notion that healthcare should be available for everyone was commonly agreeable.  The question from the beginning was financial: How to pay for it.  With a veto-proof Congress, President Johnson rammed his healthcare program through in 1965 and he supported it with payroll taxes. 

Over the years, the relationship between the number of people paying payroll taxes and the number of retired people grew narrower, and made it obvious to anyone who can blow his nose that the system could not continue on that basis. 

President Nixon knew the system would eventually go broke.  It had devastated his budgets and would do the same to his successors. 

A string of federal deficits, which began with Johnson, has continued through the current day -- $5 trillion, 76 percent of which was caused by the unsustainable costs of the newly-created Welfare State, a part of which is Medicare. 

In the 2009 budget, more money will be spent on healthcare than defense -- in a time of war.  That is, on the surface, ridiculous.

Carter, in 1980, handed over a bankrupt system to Reagan, who organized a short-term fix. 

Presidents Clinton and Bush had problems with the system.  Clinton did nothing.  And Bush, who attacked entitlement programs more directly than any prior president, backed off when his proposals fell on deaf ears.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans dared to support him in sufficient numbers to make a difference. 

And so the problem was handed off once more, this time to Obama. 

What is the lesson of history?  Don't do it again!  Don't add another entitlement to the budget of a Welfare State, which has already proved itself to be unsustainable.

And that's exactly what he intends to do.  It is lunacy on a scale that could bring the nation to its knees.

Obama says deficits and debt will decrease.

That is a silly statement.  Even the Congressional Budget Office says so.  The nation can't afford its current array of entitlement programs.  How could it possibly afford another one?

Obama says he does not want to nationalize health insurance.

The president is not telling the truth.  The Democratic Party since Woodrow Wilson (1912-20) has wanted to socialize medicine and, in its earlier days, did not try to hide it.  Johnson went part way (Medicaid-Medicare).  The Clintons tried to complete the job in the 1990s.  Now, it's Obama's turn to add the crown jewel to the Welfare State that was created by Johnson. 

It is shameful that he hides his ultimate designs from the American people.

Supporters say the changed system will be better.

There is zero objective evidence that socialized medicine outperforms America's system.  An argument can be made that even at its weakest point (the Emergency Room option) American patients get better service than many insured patients elsewhere. 

Current arguments focus on cost.  That is incorrect.  It should first be on quality.  If a proposed system does not offer as good, or better, quality, it should be dismissed.

There is no socialized medical system on earth that does not ration healthcare; none are as well equipped as the American system; none has the same access to modern drugs. 

But over 40 million people are uninsured.

That's another bogus number.  When those with money who prefer not to be insured, those who are between jobs for a few months and immigrants are subtracted, there are less than 10 million who are permanently uninsured for a variety of reasons.

We are a nation of more than 300 million people.  A nation doesn't change the entire nature of any working institution when only a fraction of its citizens need more help.

Criticism is easy.  But is it helpful?

Yes, it is much easier to take shots at possible solutions than it is to come up with better ideas.  But, especially when the entire approach to the problem is wrong, and is motivated by politics above all other considerations, criticism is necessary and helpful as a tool designed to slow the process down and force more intelligent discourse.

There is nothing new about the Medicare problem.  It is being raced through the legislative process while Obama's popularity is high, and before the election of 2010, at which time Democrats could lose their substantial congressional edge.

Can the problem be solved without causing short-term deficits and rising debt?

No.  If the problem is solved Obama's way, deficits will be eternal.  If it is solved by restructuring the system, short-term deficits will be suffered that over time will diminish, then disappear.

Are deficits dangerous?

Short-term deficits should not be a problem.  Presidents from the beginning have run deficits during times of war, for example, but when things became normal again, deficits disappeared and, most often, debt was reduced.  Since the 1960s, however, deficits have been unremitting, and the ability to borrow without causing harm has been used up. 

Some point to the Vietnam War, Korea and the Cold War to explain this.  That is incorrect.

Normal receipts during those periods were sufficient to cover most of the costs of those conflicts -- most of the deficits were caused by unaffordable entitlement programs.

As a result, borrowing power available to cover emergencies is not as available as it should be -- it was unwisely used up on avoidable costs.   Additional borrowing has become dangerous because it places the U.S. in a weak international position, vulnerable to dangerous pressures, as never before.

Because of this, even short-term deficits are dangerous; long-term, they could destroy the dollar, and the nation.  The dollar is currently under attack, and Obama has only begun to spend.

Conclusion

The nation was almost broke in 1980.  Then the economy, stimulated by Reagan's tax cuts, turned around.  The same situation faces Obama.  He is adding cost to the private sector and seeks to add more.  He intends to increase taxes and add more entitlement programs. 

Does that sound to you like a plan destined to improve the health of America's job-creating companies?

If so, I've got a bridge I'd like to show you....