|
 |
 |
|
President's Healthcare Lunacy
-
07/23/09 04:49 AM ET
Last night President Obama may have stretched his credibility beyond the limit.
It strains credibility to argue that expensive, unfunded healthcare reform will help strengthen the recessionary U.S. economy already overburdened by record government deficits. It is like a used-car salesman asking a financially overextended family to borrow more money on its remaining credit card lines to finance an efficient BMW that will save it gas mileage.
The economic benefit to healthcare reform is speculative at best. Eighty percent of Americans are satisfied with their level of medical care. That is not a reason to scrap the current system. It may call for incremental reform to address certain issues that are of concerned to many of the 20 percent who are not satisfied. However, to embrace additional taxes on the wealthy and depend on speculative savings to finance this healthcare plan is at best dreaming.
Last week Mr. Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defined wealthy as those who made over $280,000 but revised it when too many liberal Democrats making over that amount complained. When the speculative savings do not come from the president's plan, will those families making over $280,000 suddenly become wealthy? What about those making over $100,000 or $50,000?
“If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your healthcare costs over the next 10 years,” Obama said, “that’s guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their healthcare, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that.”
The president is correct as far as he goes. However, he is describing his publicly financed healthcare reform proposal, not the present system. What public service runs more efficiently than privately owned competitors? Would you rather trust your packages to FedEx and UPS or to the U.S. Post Office? How much more do military specs cost the government than comparable commercial products? Remember the $600 Navy toilet seat back in the mid-1980s. How much time have you had to wait in line for the DMV, post office, IRS help line, Social Security benefits or any other inexpensive government service? Be prepared to add healthcare to the list.
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, most Americans, through experience, know that government services are neither of high quality nor cheap unless the government is subsidizing them with other taxpayers' money.
Visit www.armstrongwilliams.com .
It strains credibility to argue that expensive, unfunded healthcare reform will help strengthen the recessionary U.S. economy already overburdened by record government deficits. It is like a used-car salesman asking a financially overextended family to borrow more money on its remaining credit card lines to finance an efficient BMW that will save it gas mileage.
The economic benefit to healthcare reform is speculative at best. Eighty percent of Americans are satisfied with their level of medical care. That is not a reason to scrap the current system. It may call for incremental reform to address certain issues that are of concerned to many of the 20 percent who are not satisfied. However, to embrace additional taxes on the wealthy and depend on speculative savings to finance this healthcare plan is at best dreaming.
Last week Mr. Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defined wealthy as those who made over $280,000 but revised it when too many liberal Democrats making over that amount complained. When the speculative savings do not come from the president's plan, will those families making over $280,000 suddenly become wealthy? What about those making over $100,000 or $50,000?
“If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your healthcare costs over the next 10 years,” Obama said, “that’s guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their healthcare, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that.”
The president is correct as far as he goes. However, he is describing his publicly financed healthcare reform proposal, not the present system. What public service runs more efficiently than privately owned competitors? Would you rather trust your packages to FedEx and UPS or to the U.S. Post Office? How much more do military specs cost the government than comparable commercial products? Remember the $600 Navy toilet seat back in the mid-1980s. How much time have you had to wait in line for the DMV, post office, IRS help line, Social Security benefits or any other inexpensive government service? Be prepared to add healthcare to the list.
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, most Americans, through experience, know that government services are neither of high quality nor cheap unless the government is subsidizing them with other taxpayers' money.
Visit www.armstrongwilliams.com
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
