Smith Faculty Opinion Article

By Dr. John A. Haslem, Professor Emeritus of Finance E-MAIL WEB SITE

The 30 Seconds Outlook
September 1, 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