Health Care Reform: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff (Or Fact From Fiction)
Health Care Reform: Separating The Wheat From The Chaff (Or Fact From Fiction)
By
Ken Eliasberg
As we plunge further and deeper into the morass on which our health care journey is taking us, let’s keep a couple of things in mind - some eternal truths and the goal of reform. First, the eternal truths: (1) there is indeed no such thing as a free lunch, and (2) if it seems too good to be true, it typically is. As for the goal, that is actually quite simple (although you may not have gathered that from left-wing media coverage of the subject, in general, and certainly not from anything which the left has offered up on the topic in this journal).
What we want in health care reform are 3 things for as many of our citizens as is economically possible.
Quality care that is
accessible, and
affordable.
It’s that simple — quality care on an accessible and affordable basis. Let me assure you that none of the current proposals under consideration come within a country mile of doing that. On the contrary, let me offer a prediction — they will do the exact opposite. And that would be especially true for any universal health care or single-payer proposal.
In passing, you will note that I phrase our inquiry in terms of what we appear to want re a health-care-reform result, i.e. quality care on an accessible and affordable basis. In so phrasing the introduction to health care, I am not conceding that there is any “right” to health care (as some on the left would have you believe). Why not? Because there is none! This pursuit is in the nature of a desire not a duty; it may be morally pleasing to provide health care, but it is certainly not because we are legally obliged to do so.
While I want to, and intend to, spend a good deal of time on health care, in the course of which I intend to demonstrate the complete folly of Obama’s proposals, let me make a few preliminary observations. First, a suggestion re how one should approach this situation — health care. Do so in a completely objective manner with a completely open mind. That is, for at least the moment, suspend judgment, eliminate political considerations, and view the subject as if you were doing so for the first time, unimpeded by any political bias — again, just for the moment; don’t worry about your biases - they will still be there when your analysis is completed. In short, suspend disbelief! Look at this topic, not as a Republican or a Democrat but as an American, concerned with his country’s well-being as well, more personally, as that of his family. And, in doing so, just bring to the table of your analysis, nothing more than common sense and your own life experience. In short, open your mind to a full, fair, and objective appraisal of the area.
In this connection I offer you a couple of thoughts that I think are not only worthy of your consideration, but bear fatal witness to not just the implausibility of the current health care proposals, but to what I believe to be their underlying motivation, i.e. a consolidation of power in the hands of the federal government — which will not only not advance the cause of our health care system, but will work to eventually destroy it.
Let me offer some suggestions in your approach to arriving at your answer — not mine, not Bayer’s (to the extent he has proposed one), and not Obama’s — YOURS. First, what’s the rush? It would be difficult enough if we were considering just one 1,000-page proposal that would each cost a trillion dollars, but we have been asked to consider 3 (the stimulus bill, the cap and trade proposal, and the health care proposal) simultaneously - actually, the most recent health care bill is over 2,000 pages and would cost an admitted 1.2 trillion dollars. Not only have we have been asked to pass on each proposal in record time, but we have been asked to do so when those who are advancing the cause of these proposals — our congressman — have themselves not even read the proposals. Why? Assuming these measures have any validity, will they be any less valid after we have had time to review them, discuss them, and evaluate their responsiveness to our alleged problem? In short, why are we being steamrollered in this manner?
Also, why the multiplicity of proposals — i.e. Senate, House, Obama, etc. — none of which have been exposed to much examination. Indeed, manay of which have not even been reduced to concrete, tangible terms that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can properly score? And why, if the problem is so real and so pressing, can it not be reduced to terms that the people who will have to live with the outcome of these proposals can understand? In short, if the proposal is valid and appropriate, why can’t the people — i.e. you — be given a Cliff notes version for your consideration? And, by the way, this is not too much to ask — your legislators, Corporate CEOs, almost any executive of consequence do not, for the most part, embroil themselves in such matters; they have staff to distill things for them. For example, whether it was in government or industry, or even private practice, my boss (or my client) relied on me to prepare a synopsis of any measure of any length that I placed before them for consideration and with respect to which they were going to have to make a decision. In industry, I always prepared, as is the custom, an executive summary for the CEO; in government, I always provided my superior with a simplified, 1 or 2 page summary of any lengthy legal memorandum that I was submitting for a decision; and, in private practice, while I always insisted that a client read the document, agreement, trust, etc. in its entirety, by the same token, I provided him or her with a simplified explanation (in English, not in legalese or legislativese) that would ease his difficulty in doing so. And these were sophisticated, highly educated people for whom I was doing this work. Why then should our citizens, many of whom are uneducated and/or unsophisticated in such matters, be asked to pass upon measures that will have far ranging economic effects (not just on them, but on their children and grandchildren as well), whose effectiveness has certainly been questioned, and to do so without possibly having time to give them adequate attention were they inclined to do so?
What’s the rush? Isn’t this approach somewhat disconcerting to say the least? Now, I realize that Obama has only a relatively brief honeymoon period (which by now I believe he has exhausted) and is endeavoring to utilize this “crisis” as an “opportunity” (in the words of Rahm Emmanuel) to accomplish as much as he possibly can. However, that does not mean that the American public should have to vote on trillion-dollar proposals that may do what Obama says or may, in the alternative, throw America into an economic dark age, without having sufficient time to address and absorb the material that they are being asked to pass upon. Think about that! For the sake of your country, your children, and your grandchildren, think about that!! And then see how well the outcome of that thought can be reconciled with your previous predisposition on the subject.