The Bottom Line: So-called 'benefits' of the health care bill are authoritative and fiscally irresponsible
Dan Clements
Issue date: 11/2/09 Section: Opinion
A more pressing concern in the health care industry in America is the exorbitant and rising costs. Health care expenditures in the United States are among the highest in the world and will continue to grow. The reason for this surge in health costs is the fact that consumers of health services are insulated from costs. Most Americans today are covered by their employer due to a tax exemption enacted during WWII. This shields people from the direct costs of their health services and they end up not shopping around for the best bang for their buck. Thus, they end up racking up huge expenses. This bill does nothing to address this problem, and, if it passes, we can only expect costs to continue to grow.
Then there is the public option - hailed as a tool to bolster competition, improve choice, and control costs. However, economists have long noted that when something can be provided by the market (the private sector), the government cannot do a better job. For example, the United States Postal Service cannot keep pace with the likes of UPS or FedEx, and public schools consistently display lower performance results compared to most private schools.
What about the risks we would take in creating one? It is possible that through unfair advantages a government agency - with access to tax dollars and the ability to pay less than the market price of procedures - this could easily turn the public option into a monopoly.
Doing so would compound all the drawbacks of a monopoly with those of a government bureaucracy. Innovation would stagnate, costs would rise exponentially and the government would have a central and authoritative role in our medical decisions.
There are many problems with the current health care industry and reform is needed, however this plan contains very to curb these afflictions and a high potential to exacerbate the situation. The problems of enacting reform of this sort would reach further than just the health care industry.
The new burdens on businesses could stifle recovery and the new spending programs could end up costing far more than projected. The taxes already planned to pay for this would do nothing to aid and are inappropriate for a weakened economy. I encourage all reasonable citizens to write their representatives in Congress so this catastrophe can be avoided. And if our elected officials do not heed the call, I would strongly consider replacing them come 2010.
Then there is the public option - hailed as a tool to bolster competition, improve choice, and control costs. However, economists have long noted that when something can be provided by the market (the private sector), the government cannot do a better job. For example, the United States Postal Service cannot keep pace with the likes of UPS or FedEx, and public schools consistently display lower performance results compared to most private schools.
What about the risks we would take in creating one? It is possible that through unfair advantages a government agency - with access to tax dollars and the ability to pay less than the market price of procedures - this could easily turn the public option into a monopoly.
Doing so would compound all the drawbacks of a monopoly with those of a government bureaucracy. Innovation would stagnate, costs would rise exponentially and the government would have a central and authoritative role in our medical decisions.
There are many problems with the current health care industry and reform is needed, however this plan contains very to curb these afflictions and a high potential to exacerbate the situation. The problems of enacting reform of this sort would reach further than just the health care industry.
The new burdens on businesses could stifle recovery and the new spending programs could end up costing far more than projected. The taxes already planned to pay for this would do nothing to aid and are inappropriate for a weakened economy. I encourage all reasonable citizens to write their representatives in Congress so this catastrophe can be avoided. And if our elected officials do not heed the call, I would strongly consider replacing them come 2010.
Be the first to comment on this story