Healthcare in America... Why Obama's plan is wrong for America

The RIGHT Perspective:
Healthcare in America

Written by: Jamal Greene

The hottest and most contentious topic in politics today, and I believe for the coming months, is Healthcare Reform, or should I say, “Health Insurance Reform”. From the congressional town halls that dominated the 24-hour news cycles during the recent recess, to the heated debates televised on “Meet the Press” and “This Week”, health insurance reform, as prescribed by the Obama administration, has ignited a fire among the American people. Both sides, Liberals and Conservatives, all agree that we need some sort of health reform in the United States; we simply have different methods of getting there. First, let’s discuss the problems with the Democrat proposal:

1.  Cost

Cost is one of the biggest problems with Democrat’s health insurance reform legislation. The CBO has estimated that the House Democrats’ bill will cost the American between $900 billion and $1 trillion over the next ten years, but that, of course, is a low estimate. The President proposed back in February what he referred to as a “healthcare reserve fund” in the amount of $634 billion to be used as a “down payment” for a universal healthcare system. Combining his $634 billion start-up with what the CBO estimates it would cost annually to run such a program, we are already close to $1.7 trillion over ten years; and that’s still a low estimate since we have been shown time and time again that NO federal program comes in at its original budget forecast. Another point of interest is how the congressional democrats came to the $1 trillion figure. Conservative think tanks and a few liberal ones, such as the Urban Institute, all scored the House bill and came to a cost of $2 trillion or more. So, why the disparity in the numbers? Simple, the House democrats are using an old budgetary trick to hide the true cost. For example, Congress is launching a new entitlement program, such as healthcare reform, and they estimate the cost to be $1 trillion over the next 10 years; however, they don’t plan to launch the program until year six, halfway through the ten year period. So, let’s say the program was to run from the FY 2010-2019 (fiscal years) (actually ending in 2020), but congress decides to delay the program from “officially” starting until year six, seemingly cutting the actual cost in half, right? Wrong. The cost of the program is around $200 billion, so if the program is delayed to start 5 years out, the cost given by the congress is only through FY 2014- 2019: $1 trillion. However, this is an illusion because the bill is budgeted for ten years and will be funded for ten years; just not from FY 2010-2019. In simple terms, the first five years are eventually tacked onto the back end of the program.

Ponder this scenario: There is a waiting list for a liver transplant and, at present, there are two individuals
on the list: one the age of 28 and the other 64. Under a universal system that is specifically designed to curve
cost, the government would mandate the 28 year-old receive the life saving transplant; not the 64 year-old…
The 28 year-old has more to contribute via a life of taxation, while the 64 year-old is nearing retirement…

In the context of a $14 trillion dollar economy, what’s the problem with spending $2 trillion on a universal healthcare system? The problem is the mounting US debt. There have been voices crying out regarding the staggering US debt—from members of Congress to world renowned economist—but none, in my opinion, has been more effective in articulating the seriousness of our debt as former US Comptroller General David Walker. In his words, I quote, “A tsunami is building and ready to hit future generations, but this one won’t be set off by earthquakes or other natural disasters. Instead, it will be a fiscal calamity created by the failure of government and business leaders to deal with the financial drain of millions of retiring baby boomers.” The national debt now stands at over $11 trillion and is growing fast, day after day with no end in sight. Along with the $11 trillion in debt we also have outstanding liabilities for both Medicare and Medicaid totaling over $53 trillion dollars; benefits we have promised, but cannot pay. The first of the baby boomer generation, those born between 1946-1964, totaling near 79 million, began to retire in 2008 with the youngest of the group reaching 65 in 2030. The outstanding cost associated with the retiring of such a massive amount of people is unthinkable; and, at present, unfunded. The benefits promised to these individuals via Medicare and Social Security is where the $53 trillion figure comes from. With the US already having a national debt of over $11 trillion with every indication that it will reach $12 trillion in the coming years, how are we to fund entitlement programs in the red for $53 trillion dollars? The answer is: we can’t. The sad reality is that many seniors, and those soon to be, will not receive all the benefits they have been promised.

2.  Healthcare Rations

The problem with creating such a government behemoth like a universal health insurance is that it has no choice but to lead to rationing of healthcare. In plain terms, the US healthcare system is stretched thin at present. An average wait in an emergency room is anywhere from 3-6 hours depending on your location and the severity of your ailment; I should know. I was recently in one with my partner, the wait was over 5 hours, and we have good health insurance. The healthcare industry is lacking the professionals it desperately needs, mainly doctors and nurses, to efficiently treat patients. This is a major constraint on the healthcare industry. Nationally, we have about 800,000 doctors growing at a minuscule rate of 1% annually, with nurses numbering about 1.4 million. Stretching this limited pool of professionals to care for an additional 47 million people will, in fact, lead to the most severe types of rationing of care. And with most of the healthcare cost from individuals coming at the end of life versus the beginning, who do you think will be most affected by rationing? The Elderly. That’s right… throw grandma under the bus. Ponder this scenario (keeping in mind that one of the main reasons the democrats give for a universal system is to restrain cost): There is a waiting list for a liver transplant and at present there are two individuals on the list: one the age of 28 and the other 64. Under a universal system that is specifically designed to curve cost, the government would mandate the 28 year-old receive the life saving transplant; not the 64 year-old. The reason is that, in the eyes of a government bureaucracy, the 28 year-old is seen as a better “investment”. The 28 year-old has more to contribute via a life of taxation, while the 64 year-old is nearing retirement. It’s an easy call for a bureaucrat whose main objective is to cut cost and generate revenue for the government. Sorry, Grandma. The scenario I used is fictional, but is a real possibility under a government-run health system. There have been hundreds of healthcare horror stories from individuals that live in countries that provide government healthcare and they are not pretty.

Stretching this limited pool of professionals to care for an additional 47 million people will, in fact, lead to the most severe types of rationing of care. And with most of the healthcare cost from individuals coming at the end of life versus the beginning, who do you think will be most affected by rationing? The Elderly. That’s right… throw grandma under the bus…

3.  Medicare Cuts to Seniors

In the house democrat bill there is a provision to cut nearly 10% from Medicare over the coming years, adversely affecting those who have labored their entire lives and thought that they were entering into their golden years with a sense of security: Our Seniors. Not only will many of them receive less than stellar social security benefits, if any, but they will now be forced by the federal government to accept a lower quality of healthcare due to insufficient funding. Medicare barely covers the medical expenses for most seniors today; this is why the government allows seniors to combine Medicare coverage with “private” supplemental plans. But, if the Democrats get their way, Medicare will be cut by 10% and the ones who will suffer most will be the elderly. Why? Unbeknownst to most people, Medicare is not an “optional” healthcare plan for seniors; it is federally mandated. Senior citizens are automatically enrolled in Medicare once they reach the age of availability, whether they want to be or not. So, we force seniors into a system that is insufficient to care for their needs and then, on top of that, tell them we are cutting 10% of the funding?

In my next article on healthcare I will outline a conservative prospective with free market and cost effective solutions for healthcare reform in America. Contrasting points of view are encouraged. This issue is too serious for any of us to sit out on the sidelines…

Article posted courtesy of Jamal Greene and appears in eXcapethematriX magazine, Sept 09 issue