Obama Lacks a Clean Bill of Health
Sixteen years ago, after leading the American military into Iraq, an ill-esteemed George Bush was outmoded by a young, silver-tongued Democrat who made a spurious demand for a “change” in the American style of healthcare. Likewise guided by his wife’s so-called “thorough” knowledge of the sector, he sought to make the institution public within the first year of his presidency. If history is ever likely to repeat itself, President Obama will commit the same error that Bill Clinton did when his radical proposal for health reform fell flat in the early nineties. Then as now, the Democrats occupied the majority of seats in both the House and the Senate. So what could possibly have gone wrong? There was no attempt to establish a consensus about the proposal’s all-important details, nor was there a sufficient effort to clarify the reform’s economic reality to those outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’s closed white doors. On the frayed coattails of a recession, meanwhile, the prospect of spending tax dollars to an extravagant degree did not seem a prudent aspiration. It was, it still is, hard for the country to board a train moving so fast it has time for just two stops—bill as-proposed and the irreversible effects of a poor policy.
Outlining the issue and its best solutions needs to be done, therefore, at a graceful rhythm and with the utmost attention to particulars.
The fundamental problem with the current system is two-fold: soaring premiums and availability flaws.
Addressing the latter defect, the most cited statistic is the 46-million Americans who do not hold health insurance. Many take the fact at face value, deciding that these people are uninsured because of extenuating circumstances and that they would purchase insurance if they simply could afford it. Yet Medicaid is available to low-income individuals, and Medicare is available to the retired; while accounting for the shortcomings of both programs, the welfare-inclined must look elsewhere when trying to explain the status of the uninsured. Multiple studies have found that a large portion of the demographic consists in young, risk-loving individuals who would rather face the uncertainty of their future livelihood than pay high premiums. Of course, it’s not just the young who suffer high rates (and the young don’t suffer inflated prices just because of the hazards associated with vernal, spirited lifestyles). The cost of health insurance is skyrocketing across the board.
The Pelosi plan, backed by Obama, opts to establish a public-option program that – at least in name – allows one to choose between a private plan and a federalized plan whose prices are controlled by the government. Yet the choice no American has entails that, either way, everyone must pay for the public program. Choose the private option, and you’ll end up paying for both.
The government’s fickle method of lowering costs is, meanwhile, to contrive a monopoly over health insurance by plunging its own prices beneath those established naturally by the market; by sustaining a loss that only it, the government, could survive; by forcing private insurance companies to lower their own premiums in order to compete and, thereby, running them out of business. How the government is to fund its losses will be through taxes and deeper debt.
Having garnered the disdain of Republicans and fiscal Democrats alike, the proposed surtax on the wealthy has, of course, been one of the major impediments to the acceptance of the plan; increasing taxes during a recession, which further reduces spending in the economy, is also a terribly unpopular proposal. The failure to achieve even full party support before the August recess, a failure that has delayed any vote on the bill until the autumn, is undoubtedly a sign of weakness.
No one claims that healthcare reform is among the least of this country’s priorities. Yet only bipartisanship, backed by economically sound and economically just solutions, can lead to successful and lasting healthcare reform that is beneficial to all Americans.
It will be useful to string out a number of ideas, presently entering the discussion, that are alternative to the Pelosi plan in part or in whole.
Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, has proposed that the government post price data for all medical expenses. While this action might seem superficial, it would allow consumers to swap between various treatment alternatives manageable within their own budgets, giving them the ability to choose their optimal providers and medical procedures.
