Maggie's Farm

Do “Democrats Present Hurdles for Obama,” or do basic truths?

Those who say they’re confused or that some issue is complex usually are avoiding seeing basic truths.  This is the case with health care “reform” and with the broader matter of government spending and regulation of the market economy.  In a big and fast-paced world, it’s difficult to cut through to root causes but basic truths still emerge and overcome the chatter clutter. 

For examples of basic truths:

-          Government spending is tilted toward social goals and shifting political power and its rewards moreso than productivity outcomes.

-          Taxes tend to reallocate resources from the private sectors’ productivity and personal choice goals toward the goals of the less productive.

-          Government debt costs and can tend to become excessive and crowd out other government and private social goals as well as basic responsibilities.

For example of how basic truths emerge:

It is now admitted by all but its fiercest partisans and flacks that the sort of health care reforms touted by Democrats in Washington will not trim overall costs.  It will increase national debts, and reallocate control of personal choices and of provider renumeration as to cause rationing and shortages of providers and access.  Polls demonstrate that most of the public is opposed to the details that have leaked from the closed doors in D.C. trying to come up with schemes.

Yet, the current Rasmussen poll still finds “50% of U.S. voters at least somewhat favor the Democrats’ health care reform plan, while 45% are at least somewhat opposed,” although the poll “question did not in any way describe the plan as it stands to date. It was simply presented as the health care reform proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats.”  The poll points at partisanship, and we may add hope, at cause of this survey result.

So, what is the result when hope meets reality, or basic truth?  The widely touted Massachusetts health plan offers insight.  Prior to its effective date, 67% of Massachussetians supported it.  Now, only 26% consider it a success.  What happened?  This heavily footnoted analysis sums up what happened:

When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true:

 

• Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
  

   



• Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.
  

   



• New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
  

   



• Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.
  

   



• A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician.
  

   

With the "Massachusetts model" frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model.

 

Massachussets is in a budget crisis, as most states, not helped by the far-above estimated costs of its health care law (see this July 2009 comprehensive services and costs analysis), requiring steep cuts in services and increases in taxes.   And, as Massachusetts’ Democrat Treasurer points out:

Cahill asserted that those whose legacies are tied to the healthcare initiative failed to take a hard look at the costs when the legislation passed several years ago and now are reluctant to cut costs. “If you’re going to bankrupt one group to help pay for another, at the end of the day we’re all poorer,’’ Cahill said.

For more basic truths, see: Top Ten Reasons For ObamaCare Are Based On False Information