I don’t know what the title of this blog entry means, but the president seems to think it has something to do with the role of government.
The local news is hush-hush about Obama’s highly-advertised healthcare speech last night. Reporters could be waiting for the dust to settle. Meanwhile, a good source of information comes out of New Dehli.
The speech did little to convince me of anything more than that the president was not thinking things through thoroughly. Obama said his plan will not involve new taxes. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.” The plan is to be paid entirely by premiums. This looks good on paper. Insurance companies have found it expedient to drop people with pre-existing conditions and cap coverage in order to remain solvent. Obama proposes the public option can avoid these pitfalls by not paying executive salaries and cutting administrative costs. It should be a first if a government program could have less administration than a private one. A question that remains unanswered is how much of the administrative work of the private sector is performed to satisfy government regulations.
Obama wants new legislation to eliminate caps on insurance payouts and require insurance companies to cover people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. It is difficult to see how eliminating executive salaries will compensate for the increased costs insurance companies will incur from the new regulatory burdens. It is less likely the government will cut private insurers a break in paperwork. In fact, more would be anticipated in the name of transparency if the private insurers will be expected to compete with a “public option.”
The president denies the “public option” has anything to do with lies and scare tactics launched by opponents, claiming, unsatisfactorily, “It’s just part of the plan.” He claims the lateral entry of a “public option” into the marketplace will not force anybody to give up their healthcare. Yet, if the price is right, its existence could create an avalanche of takers, eventually forcing private insurers out of business.
The president wants everybody to have healthcare, and yet he would impose a penalty, estimated at $3800/year on those too poor to afford insurance. To shift the cost burden more heavily onto the middle class, Obama’s program would include a hardship waiver and exclusions for 95% of small businesses. The cost of the program was lowered to $900 billion, leaving analysts to conclude not everybody will be covered. Furthermore, it is no secret that bills often carry low price tags to help them sail through ratification.
Obama says there is no truth to rumors about death panels. This is consistent with the belief that capping potential earnings and lifting limits on expenditures of insurance companies will not create scarcity. As indicated above, any persons deserting newly-burdened insurance companies for a “public option,” because they’re marginalized by compliance costs, will be viewed as unintended consequences.
Frighteningly, the president stresses the importance of preventive screenings in conjunction with a mandate for coverage. With concerns about medical records becoming public, it is sick to think our country would require us to have photographs of our body parts posted in the public domain.
One is left wondering what kind of government Obama believes we have. He wants to ensure no government or insurance company bureaucrat gets between people and their healthcare. This almost sounds like a call for a new bureau of oversight. Who will determine what costs are excessive, and who will enforce new limits? Who will be the healthcare czar?
Perhaps the largest question left unanswered is why does government have to pick up the pieces? “We will immediately offer . . . ,” said the president. Why does the government have to operate an insurance exchange if one is to be available for persons seeking independent policies? If every private effort to do this has proven unsustainable, what were the causes, and how will government avoid them and still provide quality healthcare at low rates?
Obama is laboring under a myth that government is immune to corruption. One thing that made America great is that Our Founding Fathers, unlike many organizers of nations, understood this was a myth and based government on a system of checks and balances to control the frailties of those who would seek office.
Lastly, Obama acknowledges that healthcare makes up 1/6 of the US economy. The legislation he proposes appears to be directed toward bankrupting private insurance companies. These companies might be too big to fail and therefore require government to buy their stock and place cronies on their boards of directors. In the meantime, right-wingers can put their economics books down and enjoy the sweet smell of seduction.
