Barack
Obama ran a brilliant campaign for president. Unfortunately for him,
that strategic brilliance did not carry over to his campaign for
healthcare reform. His push for greater government control of
healthcare has struck a majority of Americans as radical, arrogant, and
not so subtly lethal.
Obama
is backtracking, trying to salvage some increase in government control.
He dropped the proposal for government end-of-life counseling.
“Hello,
Mr. Smith? I’m your government counselor. Tell me about yourself. How
badly do you want to live? I’m sorry I can’t come over and meet you in
person, but I have thousands of clients. Can you help me out and tell
me why you should have priority in receiving life-prolonging treatment?”
Obama
now claims to have dropped the “public option.” He is playing word
games here. His explicitly stated ultimate goal (shared with virtually
all liberal Democrats in Congress) is to nationalize healthcare, and he
is still working to increase government control of healthcare as much
as is politically possible.
Obamacare
is not “socialized medicine,” as some critics claim, but this is a
semantic technicality. My late economics mentor, Dr. Hans Sennholz,
grew up in Nazi (national-socialist) Germany. He explained that the
difference between socialism and fascism was that socialists seize
ownership of businesses, whereas fascists let owners retain title to
businesses, but wield dictatorial control over them. When it comes to
healthcare, we see echoes of this in Obama’s August 16 New York Times
op-ed, in which he proposed that Uncle Sam regulate which people
health-insurance companies insure, the generosity of those benefits,
and the prices those companies charge.
The
fundamental flaw in the proposed healthcare reform is encapsulated in
Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that the reform would mean “a cap on your
costs, but no cap on your benefits.”
Well, that would be grand. But that’s not how the world works.
It
is an elementary economic truth that price ceilings produce an excess
of demand over supply—i.e., a shortage. Shortages breed political
rationing, as happens regularly in Canada, Britain, and other countries
with government-provided healthcare.
The
prospect of being at the mercy of government bureaucrats for access to
healthcare can make one feel as queasy as looking into the barrel of
Dirty Harry’s .44 Magnum and hearing him taunt, “Are you feeling lucky,
punk?”
Americans
don’t want to be drafted into a government-run lottery for health and
life. We oppose Obamacare because we don’t want government officials
deciding who gets what treatments when. Such awesome power may never be
abused here the way it was recently in Honduras, where deposed
president Manuel Zelaya threatened to withhold government-funded
healthcare from his political opponents; however, it is naïve to
believe that one’s political connections won’t affect who gets the best
healthcare. The members of Congress who sit on the House committee
crafting the reform bill already proved that point by exempting
themselves from Obamacare; they have preserved an exclusive, superior
healthcare plan for themselves.
As in Orwell’s Animal Farm
, in the progressive world of government-dominated healthcare, all
citizens will be equal, but some will be more equal than others.
Obamacare
needs to be defeated in its entirety. The president’s current tactical
retreats and apparent willingness to compromise are designed to get the
proverbial nose of the camel of nationalization inside the healthcare
tent.
Yes,
reform is necessary to keep the healthcare blob from devouring the
American economy. Since the last time Democrats tried to nationalize
healthcare 15-16 years ago (the so-called “Hillarycare” episode),
healthcare as a percentage of the national economy has increased from
14 to 17 percent of GDP. But the reform that is needed is not more
government control, but less.
How
can Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, et al. endorse in good
conscience a government monopoly of healthcare, given the undeniably
wasteful, inefficient, and sometimes corrupt record of government
monopolies? If our political leaders really wanted to bring some
discipline to healthcare costs, they would adopt policies that lead to
more competition, not less (for example, by allowing insurance
companies to compete for healthcare customers across state lines).
Obama
promises to make healthcare more affordable. It’s hard to have
confidence in government’s ability to accomplish this goal. Look at the
disastrous results of Uncle Sam adopting policies to make home
ownership more affordable. Medicare already has racked up over $35
trillion of unfunded liabilities. Do we really want to increase
government’s involvement in healthcare? We should recall that the
explosion in U.S. healthcare costs began with Uncle Sam’s entry as a
driving force in healthcare via Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.
This is one of those issues where
Ronald Reagan would say, “Government is the problem, not the solution.”
Obamacare is quackery, a “cure” worse than the “disease” it purports to
treat. It’s time to go back to the drawing board, and look to free
markets rather than central planning for a viable solution.
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and
contributing scholar with the Center for Vision & Values at Grove
City College.