Smith
Faculty Opinion Article
The 30
Seconds Outlook
September 1, 2009
|
“Implementing Mr. Obama’s reforms would literally be worse
than doing nothing.”
|
|
— Arthur B. Laffer, Wall
Street Journal, August
5, 2009 |
Previous Outlooks have assessed
Obama’s health care plan from the
viewpoints of a medical family
member, a cancer patient, a leading
columnist, and a leading professor
of medicine. This saga continues
with the views of a former Secretary
of HHS (Medicare and Medicaid) and a
columnist in Canada.
In discussing the potential
switch from “public option” to
“co-op,” former HHS Secretary
Micheal Leavitt remembers real farm
co-ops from his childhood:
“The
Democrats are insisting that their
version of a “co- op” wouldn’t be
government-run health care, but I
ran Medicare and Medicaid . . . and
I know this isn’t true. When
Washington provides the money, names
the directors and ultimately pays
the bills, government controls
health care. Lobbyists will lobby,
Congress will respond, and
bureaucrats will decide who gets
care, what drugs are prescribed,
what procedures are covered, and how
much money providers can charge.
Every
American needs to have access to
affordable health insurance. But, we
don’t need a “public option” that
would jeopardize the
employer-provided insurance of
millions— an option that employers
would be able to choose at their
employees’ expense. And we don’t
need the government . . . rationing
care at taxpayers’ expense.” (WSJ,
8/20/09)
Jack Mintz, writing in Canada’s
National Post [8/26/09], wants to
know what the U.S. debate on health
care is all about. In his
discussion, he considers the basic
tenet of the U.S.
Constitution---liberty:
“Recently Obama raised the “moral”
question to shore up support for his
fumbled health-care package. Values
certainly pay a role in how citizens
view health care provided by
governments. Extending health care
to the uninsured focuses on
“egalitarianism,” while loss of
control by individuals over health
decisions is all about “liberty”.
[“People care about egalitarianism
even in a private system.”]
. . .
It does not take much analysis to
figure out why the Democrats are
having a difficult time selling
health-care reform. Adding on
uninsured patients costs plenty.
With . . . such huge deficits, there
is little stomach to make the fiscal
picture any more sick than it
already is. So to cover new costs,
Americans either have to pay more
taxes and higher co-payments or get
less service.
The
President has promised not to cut
government health benefits. In some
magical way, spending cuts are
professed to finance health care
without affecting services.
Canadians shake their head in
disbelief when they hear the
argument. They know that greater
“efficiency” meant overcrowded
emergency rooms, doctor shortages,
longer waiting times, less attentive
health care workers and delisting of
services.
Sure
some U.S. costs could be saved with
better management, but on one has
yet shown that this can pay for all
the uninsured. Without doubt, less
spending means rationing services.
Technologies and procedures will
become less available or be provided
less frequently. With public plans
like Medicare and Medicaid,
government will make these
decisions, not the patient and the
doctor. Liberty clashes with
egalitarianism.”
John A. Haslem
