Why The Dems Health Care Plan Is Doomed To Fail
Henry Neufeld’s post today touched on Health care and spurred me to write something I have been thinking about for several days. While it is true that so much of the Democratic health care plan is based on guesses, as serious a flaw as that is, that is not the biggest problem. The real problem is that it is doomed to fail regardless of the guesses about it.
This is not to say that it will not pass. It very well may. Democrats, not Republicans will determine this as Republicans do not even have enough votes for a filibuster. It is doomed to fail, because it cannot work. To be clear, it is not that it will not work, it cannot work.
The democrats are claiming that their plan will cover everyone while reducing costs and improving health care. Now those goals are achievable. And even the Democratic plan might, if they are lucky, achieve two out of the three. But it cannot achieve all three. To see why, let’s consider the goal of reducing costs.
Set aside what is meant by costs for the moment, there are only two ways to reduce costs. First, you could simply dictate lower costs. This can be done in a number of ways, such as reducing the amount paid for individual procedures, or by reducing the number of procedures preformed, or some combination of the two. While this would certainly reduce costs, it will also negatively affect health care. This method is how most countries who have government run health care work and is the reason such systems have such long waits.
The other way to reduce costs is to come up with new and innovative ways to deliver those services. Granted some of these innovative ways may also lead to a reduced level of health care. But they could also lead to an improved level of health care, and thereby achieve the goal of improved health care at a lower cost. If the savings were enough, you could also achieve the third goal of covering everyone. Since innovations can either improve or degrade health care, an additional component is needed to make innovation effective, and that is consumer choice.
The problem is that while politicians often speak of streamlining the process, of cutting out waste and abuse, or other things that could be consider innovations, governments rarely, if ever, innovates. In fact governments have a very difficult time of even keeping up with the innovations of market place. Instead of innovating, they regulate. Worse, regulations, by their very nature, stifle innovation. The more regulation you have the less innovation you will have. In addition, consumer choice is severely restricted as what consumers can choose is restricted to what the regulations will allow.
The health care and health insurance industry is the one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the country. While there are a thousand health insurance providers in the country, most consumers can at best choose from a handful. So it is not at all surprising that we are in the current predicament of increasing costs and declining service.
The democratic health care plan seeks to solve this by adding over 1000 pages of new laws, which will then be multiplied many times over in the form of implementing regulations. In short, they will stamp out any remaining vestiges of innovation.
Democrats counter that they will be supporting competition by including a government option that will increase competition. This is silly. For one, the increased regulation will limit innovation and thereby further reduce what little competition there is. As companies change their plans to conform to the new regulations the plans will look more and more alike and real effective choice will be reduced.
Even worse, to be an effective competitor would require the government option be responsive in the market place in a way that is just impossible for government. In the end, either the value of the government option to consumers will be so low as to have no effect on the market place, or and far more likely, the value of the government option will be so high as to draw (or have employers force) people into the government option. It will in effect be running the other providers out of business. So a government option cannot improve competition, it can only hurt it.
Thus the Democratic Health care bill will increase regulation and reduce effective choice even if it doesn’t end in single payer. While in theory it may be able to reduce cost and expand coverage, it cannot do this while improving health care. In short, it is doomed. And this is best case. Given the past record of government programs, the actual likelihood is that it will not even be able to control costs and we will be left with worse health-care and even higher costs and a system that is even more difficult to change.
The only real solution is to look to reform that will encourage both consumer choice and competition and thus will spur innovation. Not only can such an approach work, it has already worked even in the area of health care. This can be seen in that much of the innovation that has occurred over the last few decades has come from the area of plastic surgery, an area that insurance rarely covers and thus must compete in the market place to exist.
Spirituality & Religious Behavior & Life
There is a direct correlation between spirituality and religious behavior and how we see and feel and react to the world around us. Those who pray on a daily basis, and attend religious intuitions on a weekly basis, are happier, healthier, more content, more satisfied in their job, closer to their families, and have a better outlook towards the future. If you ever wanted evidence that spirituality and religiosity has a direct impact on how we regard life, its right there in the book for you.
Frank Luntz, discussing his book “What America Really Want … Really” with Dennis Prager Sept 15, 2009 Hour 2 on Prager’s paid site .
911 and Revenge?
Henry Neufeld’s recent post has a common but fundamental misunderstanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the subsequent actions, which included Afghanistan and Iraq. Revenge had little to do with it. As one who has support both actions, and continue to do so, revenge has never entered into my thinking, not in my writings at the time, which unfortunately were on a site which has since closed down, nor in a multi-part reappraisals written during one of the most difficult time on Should We have Gone? and Should We Leave? While revenge probably has been a factor for some, I do not believe it has been a major factor, or even a significant factor for these policies.
Frankly the main justification was found in a different answer to the question Henry asked about the safety of his family and the country. I do believe those efforts as painful and difficult as they are did in fact make us safer. I also believe that the current weakening of those efforts by the administration is rapidly undermining the small gains we have made and thereby putting us at much greater risk.
In short I do not believe these were acts of revenge but battles in a larger War on Terror. I agree that as Christians we should not be acting on revenge, but I just do think that revenge as played a significant role in our actions.
An Open Reply…
Brian McLaren’s Recent post at God’s Politics, An Open Letter On Health Care to Conservative Christians in the U.S. is the kind of post that frankly drives me nuts, broad on charges and innuendo, but very thin when it comes to specifics. As such, though I consider myself a conservative evangelical Christian, I have no idea whether or not I would be one of the Christians he is talking about.
To be sure I have no doubt that there are conservative Christians who are not always “radically committed to integrity and civility,” but this could be said for virtually any group. So why is this letter not to all Christians? Sure there are those who may follow “Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Fox News” more than spiritual leaders, but how is this different from those liberal Christians who follow Obama, Reed, Pelosi, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN News, PBS News, the New York Time, Washington Post, etc.? Again these are problems faced by all groups. So why is this just a letter conservative Christians?
About the closest McLaren get to specifics is when he mentions “talk of ‘death panels’ or inappropriate comparisons to Hitler.” As for the comparisons to Hitler, this sort of political hyperbole is common to some on both sides, as has been the case in the current health care debate. So again why the restriction to just conservatives? As for that reference to “death panels” granted, that may be a bit of political hyperbole, but the underlying charge on which this is based is not. If a government panel is setting standards for when medical care will or will not be given, as the bill calls for, they will in effect be deciding at least in some cases who will be given treatment that will allow them to live, and who will not and thereby be allowed to die.
McLaren complains that he has received many emails with “outlandish claims about what President Obama is planning to do regarding health care.” I have no doubt that is true. Lots of false claims are made on the internet. But he goes on to claim that “They’re based on rumors spread by certain dramatic radio and cable-tv personalities, but they are not based in truth.” At least one specific would have been helpful here. At least one claim made by one personality to give the reader some sort of context would have been nice.
For example I would say that a lot of outlandish claims have been made by President Obama in support of his plan, such that you will be able to keep your current insurance if you like it, or that doctors amputate feet and remove tonsils just to make more money and thus that is a good place to save money.
At the core McLaren seems guilty of his own complaint of “not being satisfied to compare “our” best with “their” worst, as unscrupulous politicians and media personalities so often like to do” Again I would ask why this was not an open letter to all Christians.
As for the current health care debate, for me it comes down to this. We have serious problems that need to be addressed and we have three main options:
1) Do nothing;
2) seek a solution that involves more choice and competition (i.e. a market approach);
3) seek a solution that involves more centralized planning and control (i.e. a government approach).
I would prefer 2, but Obama and the Democrats control the Government and are pursuing 3 which, for the reasons I have detailed in my book, Preserving Democracy, I believe will only make things worse, much worse. And that is why I oppose it.
I must also add that one of the problems here is one of trust and honesty. The simple fact is that I do not trust Obama or the democratic leadership. They have been pushing for many years for a single payer system. Obama in the past has said he wanted single payer but that it could not be gotten all at once. He claim that the current plan is not the first step toward single payer, but in his short time as president Obama has already built up a reputation of being less that truthful to the point that some now say that all of his statements “come with an Expiration Date.”
When this is combined with wild claims such that doctors amputate feet and remove tonsils just to make more money, plus the huge rush to push this through, I really have trouble seeing why anyone would support this effort in this fashion.
If Obama really wants to reform health care, then why doesn’t he take the time to do what Presidents in the past have done with their major proposals: formulate an actual plan as opposed to just making vague claims about it, write it up as an actual bill, and submit it to Congress. Then let Congress consider it, let people read and understand it as he works to built a consensus of support in the country to get it passed. Why must we have such a major reform rushed through so fast that few if anyone have actually had time t read it, much less analysis it.
A Touch of Class
Whether planned or not, one of the results of Obama’s attempted transformation of the United States is to bring a touch of class to the country. But not class in a good sense, but rather the growing division of the country into two increasingly distinct groups, the Elites, and the Public. Three sub-groups then divide each of these groups.
At the top of the elites are the rulers, headed of course by Obama, Reed and Pelosi. They not only head the government, but are seeking increased control over every aspect of the country, taking over large companies, seeking regulatory control over all aspect of energy production/consumption, and now health care. If successful, there would hardly be any aspect of a person life they could not regulate.
Always near the rulers are a whole assortment of cronies and hangers on; Union Bosses, Civil Rights leaders, along with a whole assortment of leaders of special interest groups. Like the court nobility of old, they are constantly seeking to curry the favor of the rulers in order to benefit themselves or their causes. Finally, there is the staff, i.e., government workers. Since they work for the rulers, they receive special considerations such as higher wages and gold plated benefit packages.
The other major group is the Public at large. At the top are the Independent Wealthy. These are not to be confused with the wealthy in general, as many of those are part of the elite. The independent wealthy are a dying breed. The elites and their cronies often portray them as the focus of all evil, even though their own wealth often equals or exceeds that of the Independent wealthy.
The problem is not really their wealth but their independence, as these independent wealthy have not paid the proper homage, normally in the form of campaign contributions, or contribution to groups supported by the elites, and thus are attacked. Often their sin is merely one of indifference, such as Microsoft, which gave virtually nothing to either political party, until it found itself facing an anti-trust suit. Since then it has corrected such oversights. With government taking over more and more of the economy, the independent wealthy will be increasingly pressured to conform, lest they be taxed out of existence.
Then there is the middle class. The middle class’ main function is to support the elites and the government they run. Finally, there are the poor. Their main function is to provide the votes the elites need to keep them in power. In exchange, they get broad promises and meager benefits aimed more at ensuring their continued dependence, and thus continued support, than any actual advancement. In fact, the more successful a program is at ending poverty, or actually improving education, etc., the more likely it will be opposed by the elites. For example, one of the actions of the Obama administration was to undercut and effectively eliminate the welfare reform of the late 1990s.
Now some would argue this has always been the case, there is nothing new here, and in some respects, they are correct. However, there is a marked change in degree with the Obama administration. No president has attempted to take over such large portions of the economy and bring them under his personal control so quickly. Sure Obama claims he is not interested in the “day to day operations,” of the companies he takes over, but such claims ring hollow when he fired the CEO of GM because he was not running thing the way Obama wanted them run.
More importantly, there is a growing double standard in the lifestyles of elites, and their corresponding condemnation of others. While Obama condemns the use corporate jets and trips to resorts by his opponents, his supporters flew so many corporate jets to Washington for his inauguration, twice as many as any previous inauguration, that Dulles had to shut down a runway in order to have somewhere to park them. When others fly private jets that is terrible, but for the elites it just fine. As it is when Obama flies to New York for a night out, or his wife files to Europe. Meanwhile, the “House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.” To be clear there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. Nevertheless, to do this while complaining about others flying in private jets has a more than a tinge of hypocrisy.
Meanwhile government continues to grow, as does the burden that the public must bear to support it. In my state of Wisconsin, the governor said he made the largest cuts in state history. Still after such deep cuts, spending will still be $3.6 billion more than the previous budget, which amount to a 6.27% increase. I wonder how many of the public who must bear the burden would see a 6% increase in the money they have to spend as a deep cut. Yet while struggling in tough economic times, many of the public will see the money they are required to pay for government increase. In short, they will have to make do with even less, so government can have even more.
This cannot go on forever. As I detail in my book Preserving Democracy, the total tax burden increased 459% over the last century. If it continues to rise like this, it will reach 100% around 2200. But that would be impossible and the system will collapse long before that. Yet rather than slowing down the growth of government is accelerating, especially with the massive spending increases of Obama.
Bottom line: we are seeing the beginning to two distinct classes. There are the ruling elites and their minions who live a lifestyle increasingly distant from the public who are forced to bear ever increasing burdens to support them.
