Obama's health proposal certainly doesn't qualify as 'reform'

Published: Monday, Nov. 16, 2009 12:14 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 

WASHINGTON — There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called "health-care reform." Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. Recovering slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending, and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.

So, what do they do? Just the opposite. Their sweeping overhaul of the health-care system — which Congress is halfway toward enacting — would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Barack Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty or both.

The campaign to pass Obama's health-care plan has assumed a false, though understandable, cloak of moral superiority. It's understandable because almost everyone thinks that people in need of essential medical care should get it; ideally, everyone would have health insurance. The pursuit of these worthy goals can easily be projected as a high-minded exercise for the public good.

Story continues below

It's false for two reasons. First, the country has other goals — including preventing future financial crises and minimizing the crushing effects of high deficits or taxes on the economy and younger Americans — that "health-care reform" would jeopardize. And second, the benefits of "reform" are exaggerated. Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity. Meanwhile, improvements in health for today's uninsured would be modest. They already receive substantial medical care. Insurance would help some individuals enormously, but studies find that, on average, gains are moderate. Despite using more health services, people don't automatically become healthier.

Recent comments

Pain and simple | 11:20 p.m.

You're partially right in my...

Re "Pain and simple | 11:20 p.m. | Nov. 17, 2009 at 3:02 p.m.

Medicare for all, then give all people the options for Medigap or...

Pain and simple | Nov. 16, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.

The only people who are for Obama care are students who are...

Anonymous | Nov. 16, 2009 at 10:18 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...

@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...

RSL will play for MLS Cup tonight

Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...

I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...

BYU record with win

B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...

4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years

Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?

Glenn Beck to enter politics?

You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...

The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...

BYU record with win

Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...

Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...

Advertisements