Volume 5, Issue 11
Yes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the GOP plan could lead to 24 million Americans losing their health care coverage. This is an important number, and maybe even a critical number, but it is not the only number.
The Obama health care system is collapsing. Premium costs are rising dramatically, coverage is becoming more limited, and many states now have only one health insurance provider. The increased cost of premiums alone is pricing many Americans out of the marketplace, and relegating them to a dictated choice for state health care. Obamacare is unsustainable because of cost increases and inadequate delivery of services. There is little dispute or rebuttal to this fact. Yet the national news media would have you believe that underwriting a failing system is preferable to pursuing reform or change.
The press completely misses the target of sustainable prosperity in their discussion.
The GOP plan rolled out this week certainly needs examination. It may in fact have to be revised to include its initial assumptions. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a physician, has declared the House GOP plan “dead on arrival.” Currently, progressives, the national news media, and even GOP officials opposed to the Republican House plan, are missing the bigger target. How do we reset our country onto a sustainable road of prosperity and provide fair and reasonable health care?
To debate the cost and delivery projections of any health care plan, without relating the aggregate cost of the specific government service to the overall budget, is misleading at best and government malfeasance at worst.
Arguing for a health care policy that, in its performance has demonstrated costs rising faster than per capita income, is a recipe for financial suicide. The average American family balances their budget around a kitchen table every week. There may be a need to repair the car, patch the roof, buy school supplies, athletic equipment and/or new clothes for the children. Everyone wants a new flat screen TV and a summer vacation. Every decision related to these needs and desires is based upon the overall family budget, both in the short and long-term. This decision-making process about budget priorities is absolutely normal and, in its essence, governments are not exempt.
Governments do have the power of the coin (print money). They can borrow at a greater rate and percentage of income than an individual household. And governments can impact the supply and cost of money through monetary policy. These economic tools allow governments to deficit spend for undetermined lengths of time, but not forever. The United States government is now in debt 107% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). What this means is that our government has borrowed more money than the economy produces in a given year. Governments worldwide are pushing the envelope as to the question – how long can a government continue to print and borrow money before such undisciplined activity impacts the economy so negatively that a family’s personal household income and purchasing power are placed in jeopardy.
The point is that it is not wrong to be concerned about 24 million people losing their health care. In fact, society may decide that health care should represent a greater percentage of the federal budget. But increasing health care services may require cuts in other services. The same can be said for free college tuition or increased welfare benefits. Any discussion on how to cure any societal need must be conducted within reference to the balance of cost and overall government services. What good does it do to only talk about health care deliverables in a failing health care system, particularly if it impedes government’s ability to provide education, infrastructure repairs, national defense, research, and so on?
It is time to think outside the box. A priority, although long-term, is to focus on the creation of new jobs and raising per capita income for the average American. This of course would allow more Americans to afford free market health care. The creation of new jobs must consider how those displaced through the past policy of globalization can recover their economic footing in a 21st century economy. Just treating the symptom will never alleviate the problem.
It is time for a reset.
The last great reset in America was in 1944 at the close of World War II. The world transitioned from totalitarianism to various structures of democracy. The United States accepted the role of the major banking and currency facilitator for the reconstruction of the industrialized world. Each state then set in motion plans for their economic strategies. Both the United States at the federal level and the fifty sovereign states of the republic are realizing the completion and final maturity of a 73-year cycle. The remainder of the world (first world, developing world, and third world) must be included in a strategic economic analysis of a plan for sustainable prosperity led by the United States.
Progressives, conservatives, and the media elites all cite justice and righteousness as the purpose and motivation for their creeds. No consideration for righteousness can be plenary without sensitivity to the impact on the generations. Today, the debates about government programs, in particular health care, are not only lacking in analysis of sustainability, but are also lacking in the analysis of impact on the generations.
The Washington Post went on to say in its editorial, “Why would anyone willingly harm the American people in this way?”
The more proper question is, why would anyone analyze health care in the abstract willingly without any consideration for the sustainability of prosperity for the generations.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?