Health Care Reform - Questions That Must Be Answered - Part II

While there is agreement amongst most parties that health care reform is something needed, it is the difference in approach that divides the nation (and more specifically, Congress).

Being the frugal Yankee that I am, I am all for making sure any reforms are sustainable, actually save money, and require no use of tax dollars to support. Is such a thing possible? I believe so, and I'm not the only one. Unfortunately far too many members of Congress and their 'supporters' believe the only answer is government control (and funding) of any and all reform. The only problem with that viewpoint is that it entirely overlooks the economics of such a system, to the peril of us all (and our wallets).

Peter Angerhofer in the September 6th Sunday Citizen (Laconia, NH) reminds us, again, that health care reform can't defy economics. (Sorry, no link available)

[I]f the current governmental health care reforms attempt to subvert basic economic laws, they are, at best, bound for failure; at worst, they could destroy the quality of care that most Americans enjoy.

While the problems of rising costs should be obvious for all to see, the president and his allies have proposed solutions that ignore the fundamental economic laws of supply and demand. I f we are to provide better access to health care, we need to recognize these basic laws and reduce prices by either reducing demand, increasing supply, or both.

The President and the leftists in Congress are basing their health care reform on the mistaken premise that the supply of health care is finite, that it is static and that it won't change. And because of that false premise, they'll try to force a drop in demand for health care as the means of reducing the costs. The only means of reducing demand is to ration care, to deny care, to decide who will and who won't be treated, who will live and who will die.

But the supply is not finite except at the present moment. Tomorrow there could be more. The day after there could be less. It is fluid. But should the government 'take over' health care, the finite supply will not expand. It will not be static. Instead, it will shrink.

How do I know that? History.

All one needs to do is look at every country that has instituted government provided/controlled health care. In every single case the quantity and quality of health care declined. In a few there were minor changes, mostly because the quality of health care wasn't all that great to begin with. In most others the decline was dramatic. Is that what we, the American people, really want to do here?

Of course not. But the Obama Administration and the leftists in Congress do. That desire has nothing to do with actually providing health care. Instead it's about control. They truly believe they know what's good for you better than you do. They believe they are the only ones that can possibly make the right decisions for you because you are incapable of making them for yourselves, that you're not smart enough. Only the government is wise enough to make those decisions. Of course we've seen the dystopian results of that before and we know we don't want to go down that path.

Should Congressional leftists ignore the economics of their health care reform bills, reform won't work. The burden placed upon the economy and the taxpayers will be too great. It will require the infusion of billions, if not trillions to ensure mediocre health care, increased morbidity, and increased suffering. A once great, though imperfect, health care system will have been reduced to a shadow of its former self. And the leftists will congratulate themselves for succeeding in pulling of the greatest swindle since Bernie Madoff.