The New Testament book of Matthew contains a well-known
allegorical tale known as the “Parable of the Talents.” In this
story, Jesus told of a man who entrusted his property to three
servants while he was away. One servant was given five silver
talents; another two; and a third one. The first two servants put
that which their master had given them to good use, and doubled
his money while he was away. The third servant, who had been
given but one talent, buried the valuable quantity of silver to
preserve it until his master returned, neither risking its safety
nor putting it to good use while its owner was away.
Upon his return, the two servants who had taken that which he had
entrusted them with and used it wisely during his absence
presented their master with their earnings. He replied to each,
“Well done, my good and faithful servant! You have been faithful
with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.”
The third servant, who had merely protected that portion of his
master’s wealth with which he had been entrusted, presented the
single talent upon the man’s return. Seeing this, the master flew
into a rage, chastising the “wicked, lazy servant” for allowing
cowardice and irresponsibility to prevent his putting the
master’s money to good use and ordering the servant to surrender
his talent to the servant who had proved his resourcefulness and
trustworthiness by doubling his master’s five talents.
The moral of this New Testament parable — be a good steward of a
little and you will be trusted with more, but poor stewardship
will lose you the privilege of being trusted with anything in the
future — is recalled to mind by the federal government’s current
attempt to take over the American health care system. The 33
years Medicare has been in existence have provided the federal
government with an opportunity to demonstrate what type of
steward its legislators and bureaucrats will be of a national
health care program millions of Americans are trusting for their
coverage and care.
“Medicare is… a government-run health care plan that people are
very happy with,” said President Obama, at a late July town hall
meeting in an effort to defend Medicare as a popular and
successful example of government health care at its best.
A simple look at the numbers is enough to rebuff Obama’s claim
that the program is an example of the federal government being a
good steward of American health care dollars and coverage, while
also serving to demonstrate the government’s inability to
accurately predict the future costs of its programs (a very
important fact to keep in mind in light of Congress’ claims that
a health care overhaul can be undertaken without costing future
generations trillions).
At its inception in 1966, Medicare carried an annual price tag of
$3 billion. Its Congressional founders predicted that cost would
rise to $12 billion a year by 1990 — a figure that accounted for
inflation.
The true cost of Medicare is stunning. In 1990, rather than
costing American taxpayers $12 billion, Medicare cost $107
billion — an increase of 800% over the government’s best guess
at the program’s cost 23 years before. That cost has increased
exponentially as the years have passed since 1990. This year,
$484 billion will be spent on mandatory Medicare outlays; by
2018, that number will be $885.1 billion, according to the
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The total amount owed
Medicare beneficiaries (American workers who are at least 22
years old and who have paid into the system, meaning they are due
Medicare coverage upon retirement) is a staggering $32.3 trillion
— an amount over twice America’s GDP, and nearly five times the
publicized national debt.
The fact that the federal government has allowed a key health
coverage program with which it has been entrusted to fall over
thirty trillion dollars in debt should send a powerful message
about Washington’s ability (or, more correctly, inability) to be
a good steward of Americans’ health care dollars and coverage.
Further, the fact that Congress has refused to do away with a law
requiring seniors to enroll in Medicare or forfeit their Social
Security benefits — a regulation that is currently being
challenged in federal court by a group of plaintiffs led by
former Republican Congressman Dick Armey — for fear of losing
massive numbers of seniors to private health coverage serves to
reinforce both the undesirability of the government-run program.
It also demonstrates the federal government’s willingness, when
given the opportunity, to force citizens onto the rolls of
government care by denying them the opportunity to choose their
coverage.
Medicare, the chief example of health care as run by the federal
government, is an utter mess that is losing doctors, resorting to
anti-choice laws to keep seniors enrolled, and hemorrhaging
taxpayer dollars by the trillions. President Obama and his allies
in the Democratic-led Congress should demonstrate their ability
to be good stewards of the people’s health care dollars and
coverage by fixing their own Medicare mess before they seek to
expand their grip on America’s health care system as a whole.
