Thursday, August 18, 2011


"In reality, the stated cost-cutting goals were part of a failed attempt to sell national health care -- a longtime liberal dream -- to a broader audience."

As I and many others have repeatedly noted, the Government Health Insurance Takeover Act is unconstitutional. A federal judge recently ruled the same thing, noting that if the commerce clause of the US Constitution can be interpreted so broadly that it can compel citizens to purchase a service, then there is no practical limits on the federal government - especially congress - at all. In other words, this would allow congress to do anything whatsoever, without any limits. Which is plainly in contradiction to the intent and text of the US Constitution.

However, since I realize that calling bills unconstitutional is utterly meaningless to most politicians and irrelevant to leftists, there's another approach which I've tried several times. All socialized medicine programs and crypto-socialized medicine like this one have a shared, basic flaw beyond the detonation of quality care and vast unpayable expense to the country in question: they do nothing to address costs.

And costs are why we're having this discussion to begin with. There wouldn't be any problem with health care in the US if it wasn't so expensive. The United States has the best health care system in the world in terms of quality, availability, and cutting edge treatment. The problem is that its also quite expensive.

The schemes that various people come up with to have every one in the nation pay in and the government oversee insurance or control it have this common flaw: they do nothing to reduce the expense. All these schemes do is spread the cost around so its less noticible to each individual person.

And recently, President Obama admitted that this latest scheme had the same flaw:
During a rant against Republican intransigence, Obama said that he could tackle the deficit tomorrow if his opponents would agree to raise taxes and "were willing to take on some of the long-term costs that we have on health care."
That Obama is now talking about the need "take on" long-term health care costs, even after passing his law, is an admission of what many of us already knew: Obamacare was never about reducing health care spending.
See, if his bill passed and is being implemented and he's calling for reduced health care costs that means the bill didn't reduce costs. Because there was absolutely nothing in the bill to do so. It was all about getting the government involved in health insurance to take it over completely when private insurers found themselves unable to compete.

Unless the cost of health care is dealt with, no amount of legislation will help anyone. The problem with health care in the US is not an insufficient amount of government control, but an abundance of expense. And the best way to handle that is to reduce costs for health care providers.

No comments: