Posted by
Ryan Hawkins on Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:34:17 AM
I can't believe I am saying this, but I liked a lot of what I heard Obama say last night during his 09/09/09 healthcare speech to congress...was it because Obama was using all the right buzz words that everyone wants to hear or was it because he presented meaningful dialogue and reform? The beginning of the speech wherein Obama outlined the problems with our current system were things both sides agree with. No one disagrees that our current healthcare system desperately needs reform.
I was hopeful as Obama included valid points from the opposition and seemed to imply a future of bipartisanship as they work through these deals. Unfortunately, there were many things he said that either highlighted his ignorance on some of the issues or that just plainly don't add up to the promises he made. For example:
- Coverage for Illegal Aliens. Although I didn't like Joe Wilson's tact, I am glad someone called out Obama on that illegal alien verbiage. I don't believe any conservatives have ever said the health care bills explicitly cover illegal aliens...Obama's comment here was misdirected. The conservative criticism has been that the bill does nothing to explicitly EXCLUDE or PROHIBIT illegals from obtaining coverage nor does the bill address any measures to ENFORCE those prohibitions or even VERIFY CITIZENSHIP. That is the problem - click here for more information. How is Obama's point (the the bill does not extend coverage to illegals) relevant if the bill does not include any language to prevent illegals from obtaining coverage? A lack of citizenship verification (or lack of enforcement plans) for illegal aliens is by default an extension of coverage because illegals will exploit that to their advantage as will the trial lawyers. On this issue, Obama still just doesn't get it.
- Pretty much any reference to "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy." That is a partisan as it gets. The Bush tax cuts are more accurately described as tax cuts to the taxpayers...if you paid a lot of taxes, you got more of a tax cut that you did if you paid no taxes. If you were already getting a free ride by paying no taxes then I'm sorry - you didn't get your taxes cut below zero. How can Obama promise bipartisanship when he keeps throwing partisan jabs at his opponents in the same breath?
- When Obama justified the cost of his program by contrasting it with the cost of the wars, I thought that was idiotic. At the time those wars were declared (by both parties) it was a matter of national security. Regardless of how fiscally irresponsible the Bush administration was (and my biggest gripe with G.W. Bush was his out-of-control spending) - Obama's spending makes Bush look like Dave Ramsey. You don't justify another trillion dollar spending package by claiming that it costs less than our last fiscally irresponsible spending package. Is it not just as idiotic for me to buy a car that my wife and I cannot afford, then buy my wife another car we cannot afford and proceed to justify those irresponsible decisions by claiming these cars still cost less than the house we bought last month (which we also cannot afford.) Do those Federal Government chambers have some electronic field that zaps away a person's common sense once they are elected? Once again, how can you promise bipartisanship when you keep throwing jabs at your opponents?
- (As an afterthought to #3, I'd be more accepting of Obama's promise to cut inefficiencies and waste to pay for the program if I had ever seen our government succeed in delivering on such a promise. I don't mean to be skeptical and pessimistic here, but the government's track record of failing to deliver on this type of promise extends far beyond my lifetime. I'd rather find an alternative where I don't have to put my trust in a government that hasn't earned my trust.)
- Overall, when Obama seemed to address critics of his plan - he pointed to their charges as ridiculous and false and remarked that the bill contained no such things. As indicated in #1 above, there is a difference between items that are specifically addressed in the bill and consequences resulting from the bill. The critics of Obama's healthcare reform raise many legitimate concerns about the CONSEQUENCES of this reform as it is written. For example, Obama dismisses the "death panels" as a ridiculous scare tactic and points out that the bill contains no such measures. That is not the point his critics are making...the "death panels" could very well be a consequence of what happens when the decision of how to ration health care (which is a scarce resource that accordingly has to somehow be rationed in one way or another - that's simple Economics 101) is turned over to the government. If 1000 individuals need life-saving care and the government-run healthcare system only has resources to provide care for 500 of those, someone in the government will make a decision on which 500 get care and which get delayed care or no care. That is the death panel concern and it is a very legitimate concern (read more about it here and also more specific comments from Obama & his advisors here) that Obama blew off as a "falsehood" and a "ridiculous scare tactic." His critics all point to Section 1233 of the bill, and Obama continues to avoid any meaningful dialogue on those concerns.
- Tort Reform - Obama has clearly underestimated how big of a problem this really is. The problem isn't limited to the skyrocketing malpractice costs for doctors who have to pass those costs on to thier patients. The problem also includes doctors having to perform all kinds of additional (and many times unnecesary) tests merely to cover their ground from a legal perspective. I truly hope Obama is open-minded about what the panels find in this area and I hope he is prepared to deal with the trial lawyers' special interest groups as he seeks reform in this area.
- Some other problems with Obama's healthcare reform shown here.
- Some other solutions that should be considered/included.
My overall philosophy is as follows:
- Keep government involvement as minimal as possible; Isn't it ironic that the 10th amendment of our constitution prohibits our congress from meddling outside of their enumerated powers (which enumerated powers DO NOT include anything remotely connected to healthcare or a "public option") yet our entire congress ignores that fundamental problem to their approach?
- Attack the problem at its source (hint: insurance isn't the source, it is merely a conduit for the real problem - escalating heath care costs are the real problem.) I liken insurance reform to bailing water off the Titanic...and I believe the "public option" only pokes a bunch of holes in your "bailing bucket."
- Limit insurance use to the large, catastrophic-type events, and have Americans pay for the basic day to day stuff either out of pocket or with HSA's. (ie: I am happy to have my insurance pay $900 for a sonogram, but I'll scrap the sonogram if the $900 has to come out of my pocket...and we wonder why healthcare costs so much? If a sonogram were not covered by insurance and Americans all had to decide whether to pay that out of pocket, the sonogram providers will have to either drop their price to get any customers or make their living doing something else. Hmmmm.)
- Speaking of HSA's, how about getting rid of that senseless "use it or lose it rule?"
- How about a system that rewards elements of healthy lifestyles - how's that for attacking the problem at the source?
- Tort reform will do a lot to bring down health care costs...to apply my Titanic example, tort reform is equivilent to closing up one of the big holes wherein the ship is taking on water.
- How about getting some balance to the supply & demand problem with healthcare. How about some incentives to create more doctors. How about expanding the capacity of the medical schools and knocking down some of the barriers that limit how many doctors we have? Again - to apply the Titanic example - this is another hole that is taking on water...but these are fixable without a massive expansion of government.
I am as hopeful as anyone that our healthcare system gets the badly needed healthcare reform. Much of the needed tweaks to our current system could be accomplished through tax credits & incentives calculated to change behavior for the medical community, the insurance companies, and the American people. That keeps the reform constitutional. The highest priority in my opinion is right in line with many things Obama said: coverage for pre-existing conditions, curbing medical inflation, allowing better access to healthcare for more Americans--(which is best accomplished by lowering the costs), preventing insurance companies from dropping you when you don't want to be dropped, tort reform, etc. I'd prefer to fix these problems in a way that costs taxpayers and employers as little as possible and in a way that limits government powers to those permitted within the constitutional framework.
I truly hope Obama was sincere in his call for bipartisanship to fix this, but that sincerity remains to be seen in the coming weeks/months.
UPDATE: Heard an interview with Joe Wilson regarding his "that's a lie" outburst during the Obama speech. Wilson pointed out that republicans proposed an amendment to the house bill that would further prevent illegal aliens from abusing the system by requiring citizenship verification. Democrats defeated the amendment and prevented it from making its way onto the bill. (Now can you understand why it pushed Wilson over the top when Obama claimed illegal aliens would not receive coverage under the bill? Obama knew about the defeated amendment yet he still deliberately and dishonestly claimed illegals would not receive coverage under his bill...in other words, he lied through his teeth to congress and America.)