The supposed health-care compromise before the Senate is nothing more than a disguised government option. President Obama and liberals pushing for some type of health-care reform may say this new plan is not the same as a government-run health-care plan, but there is little difference. This compromise plan should be rejected by conservative Democratic senators, whose support is necessary to pass a health-care bill, because it likely would dramatically increase the deficit and the role that the government plays in making every day health-care decisions.
Under the supposed compromise, Medicare would be expanded to cover people between the ages of 55 and 64. Medicare already covers people age 65 and older, and the people covered under the new expansion plan would pay higher premiums than the people currently on Medicare. Additionally, nationwide private plans would be created and would be under the oversight of a government agency.
Despite the label of compromise, this plan is a bunch of gimmickry and word games trying to obscure the fact that if this bill passes, it would mean a large expansion of government’s role in health care and increased government involvement in people’s health-care decisions.
By expanding Medicare, which essentially is a government run health insurance plan, the government would be funding an enlarged public option, although it would be one for workers in the upper tier of middle age. Despite the age limit, this expansion of the health-care system could be a large fiscal expenditure. At a time when the deficit is out of control and threatens to harm the economy, taking on such a large increase in spending does not make sense, particularly if sustainable job growth is the goal.
The creation of new private plans under government oversight also is problematic. If the plans must adhere to government dictates, they do not seem like private plans to begin with. Additionally, government oversight could lead to increased government decision making in people’s health-care decisions. It cannot be denied that if government has the power to make insurance companies follow their directives, then government will have power over the treatment that people receive.
The increased cost and additional federal control that people feared in a government run health-care plan have not gone away with this compromise being considered in the Senate. These concerns have remained, but the federal health plan has been repackaged and renamed. People who want Congress to exercise fiscal discipline and who do not want government making health-care decisions should oppose this compromise. Conservative Democratic senators should oppose it as well, if they want to maintain credibility as fiscal conservatives.
December 10, 2009
OUR VIEW: BOGUS PLAN
September 10, 2009
OUR VIEW: OBAMA’S COSTLY PLAN
President Obama did a fairly good job in his nationwide speech of outlining the problems that people have with the health-care system. Unfortunately, the speech contained no real solutions. The solutions that Obama did offer were not believable.
Two areas emerged from the speech that show Obama did not coordinate the problems he condemned and the solutions that he proposed. These areas are covering the uninsured and the cost of paying for the plan.
When discussing the expansion of coverage, one problem that Obama outlined was that people with serious conditions often cannot receive coverage. Most people probably would agree that people who need health insurance because of serious conditions should receive it. Obama’s solution is to force insurance companies to insure these people.
However, Obama also said insurance premiums are too high. Everyone can agree on that. Most people do not like paying insurance premiums. But how can insurance premiums be lowered if insurance companies are forced to insure patients who have a higher risk and need more medical care?
Common sense dictates that if insurance companies are paying for costlier medical care, they will have to raise premiums. Thus, the problem of higher premiums would not be solved.
The only possible solutions are that government will end up reimbursing insurance companies for these patients, or perhaps reimbursement rates for doctors will be cut. But if the government is putting more money into the health insurance system, people will have to pay higher taxes. Regardless of whether premiums or taxes are raised, people will pay more money. If reimbursement rates for doctors are cut, the number of practicing doctors likely will decline. The health-care system would not be improved. Thus, Obama’s solutions to rising premiums and restrictions on coverage cannot work when they are added together.
Obama’s solution to deal with the cost of reforming the health-care system is not convincing either. He claims that fraud and abuse in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid can be cut. But if fighting fraud and abuse were easy, this money already would have been saved. Fraud and abuse actually is difficult to detect, and as government involvement in the health-care system increases, fraud and abuse are likely to increase as well. The potential to save money by cutting back on fraud and abuse probably is miniscule.
In short, Obama’s health-care speech was just another campaign tactic. The specifics were not really specifics. Instead, they were a jumble of clearly enunciated problems coupled with vague and contradictory solutions.
Obama gives the feeling that he does not really care how a health-care measure would work, only that a bill passes that he can call health-care reform. The American people must demand more. If a health-care bill is passed, it must actually work, and it must actually improve the situation.
