We Must Pass Obamacare or Go Broke: The Fallacy of the Liberal Argument
Posted on 11. Sep, 2009 by James Devere in American Politics, Political Commentary
I visited one of the progressive sites today (moveon.org) to see how they were pushing the Presidents healthcare plan. From a talking points memo titled Top Five Health Care Reform Lies-and How to Fight Back, it became obvious that we will never see eye to eye on this issue. However, I did find some common ground in Lie #5. The author almost gets it right here. In fact, President Obama led off his argument highlighting the need to stop the soaring cost of healthcare. On this point, he and the liberals are right. It is what they propose to do about it that leads their argument astray.
Here is what they say.
Lie #5: Obama’s health care plan will bankrupt America!!!
The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy-to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.9 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade10-and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.11 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama’s reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12
In this case what they say is the “truth” is, in spirit, correct. Insurance costs are rising and do pose an immediate threat to our economy. However, the subsequent “truth” – “Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama’s reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12 – is where we disagree. They support this “fact” as they do many others using a foot note that links to a White House talking points memo. So they use their own bad math to support their own bad math.
The reality: We must control healthcare costs. However, the fallacy of Obamacare is that we will go broke if we do nothing, but in reality, we will go broke faster if we add cost (according to the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of the House plan) to an already costly healthcare system. Just because George Soros…er…President Obama says it won’t cost a penny does not change the economic reality with which we are faced. Adding bureaucracy has never reduced cost. What is most troubling is that they are ramrodding through an entitlement program that smacks of social engineering, and is modeled on failures (Massachusetts, Great Britain, and Canada). Even more troubling is that they do this using a felonious argument that if we don’t spend now we will go broke. We have heard that logic before with the stimulus and it just does not make economic sense nor is it common sense. So it was a nice try masking their misrepresentations by manufacturing a “lie”, but the substance, as always, falls short.
I could put more stock in this argument if the plan considered that we already have an efficient cost cutting apparatus in the United States – competition and consumer interaction. The plan does nothing to address the reintroduction of market forces which have become less prevalent over the past two decades as we placed increasingly bureaucratic insurance companies between consumers and health care services they consumed.
Two areas not covered by health insurance, Lasik surgery and plastic surgery, have seen a dramatic cost reduction and an increase in patient care over the same two decades during which insurance costs exploded. This can be attributed to the direct interaction of the customer and the service provider. The President makes two points over and over and over (28 speeches now) again that you can keep your existing plan, and that the public option is voluntary. These two pieces do not fit together – if people keep their current plan, then how will costs go down? Adding the public option also does not address the supply side of cost. Cost cutting under the President’s plan is accomplished by increasing regulation and regulators. If this works to reduce cost, it would be a first.
