By the time I was 30, I started to realize that when someone articulates an opposing view its best to assume they are right and I am wrong. Introspection informs one argument. So, I have been carefully listening to the Health care debate trying to understand how to cover more people, deal with pre-existing conditions, address rising costs, and assure Medicare does not go bankrupt. I listened with the hope of addressing these issues while expanding innovation.
Despite the various erroneous statistics claiming deficiency in quality of care in our current system, the United States is the center of world wide health innovation. Our market has created the new technologies that socialized program around the world use to deliver high quality care. Our innovation gives other nations a free ride.
I hoped in the present debate over health care that we could fashion improvements in our system while protecting the innovation that has made it great. I hoped that we could preserve our rights of choice, while expanding coverage. I hoped that we could go beyond any other countries' success with a model that expands rather than constrains. I listened between the noise of Right and Left to find real answers that could achieve wholehearted support across all demographics and political persuasions.
But alas, my deductive reasoning is taking over. Having read many insightful articles on how to fix the health care problem and having read the bills before congress, I see no correlation. For example:
- Health Savings Accounts (HSA) have reduced health care cost by 5%-15%, but they are essentially banned by the bill
- The core source of health care issues in the United States is poor preventive care, but there are few motivating provision for preventive care in the bill
- Innovation is a significant component of care to date but the bill increases taxes on companies that develop new technologies thus discouraging innovation
- Different people need different care but the bill implements new authorities that will regulate the scope of health care to limit variations
- The free market has rapidly reduced cost of elective procedures like lasix, but the bill attempts to reduce cost through unproven means like cost controls
- The bill says it will reduce costs but can only be afforded by increasing taxes on the rich by 5.4%
So, I am wondering how experts in the field of health care have views that differ so significantly from the bill in congress. My conclusion is this is not a bill about health care. This is a bill about controlling 16% of the economy.
It is interesting to note that the legislative branch was Republican dominated from 1861-1933. Under the new Deal, and passage of Social Security (amongst other programs), Democrats laid ground work that gave them legislative power, reinforced with medicare and welfare under LBJ, through 1981. Through a strong believe in the free market and freedom, Reagan laid the foundation to open markets and empower innovation. Since then we have seen Republican legislative leadership for the almost the last 30 years, reformation of welfare and a range of other empowering steps that accelerated economic growth.
It appears that social programs help Democrats keep legislative control. Overtime, as people get tired of government, eliminating social programs helps Republicans take legislative control. So, if Pelosi is writing a health care bill that does not fix health care, could She really be writing a bill to perpetuate a Democrat legislative majority? What are the signs?
- Increasing taxes on the rich who rarely vote democrat anyway
- Let young people remain covered under their parents
- Don't tax high value union health insurance programs
- Accept a narrow vote on a monumental piece of legislation
To add to my cynical view, add the notion of offering citizenship to illegal aliens. If the Democrats can successfully pass the health care bill and then allow a large fraction of illegal aliens to become citizens, they lay the foundation for a democrat majority for the next 50-60 years.
I am reminded of some key passages of the Gettysburg address:
...our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.....The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Gettysburg reminds me that the United States has achieved greatness through freedom and individual exceptionalism. As Andrew Jackson said, "One man with courage makes a majority". I interpret Lincoln to say that we need to respect the mission of individual excellence and to be "...dedicated here to the unfinished work..." of others, dedicating ourselves to "The great tasks remaining before us".
Lincoln professed that freedom and equality are a function of the individual's ability to rise above all else and contribute in exceptional ways. Lincoln did not mean "All men are created equal" so take from the rich and give to the poor, or have government displace personal freedom. Freedom is equally challenged by wiretaps as by government driven social programs.
The fundamental reality is there are more than enough ways to streamline health care without a giant government program (See "Layman's guide to Health Care"). The more important message is that Pelosi and gang are attacking the notion of our democracy by driving the health care bill. They say they are well meaning, but their failure to incorporate market proven solutions like Health Savings Accounts tell otherwise.
If its the case that the underlying purpose of the bill is to perfect the Democratic majority, it is beyond disgraceful. Government intervention to save money does not work. Government intervention to protect a majority does work. As citizens we need to dig in deeper to understand what is really going on with this bill, demanding real reform that reduces cost and expands care using the free market. If the bill just protects the majority, it is immoral and cynical.
