The choice and the contrast in health care.
In March, as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of President Obama’s partisan health care law, the American people saw an event that could mark the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. At the same time, just across the street in the halls of Congress, they witnessed a powerful reaffirmation of the American Idea as the House of Representatives passed the Path to Prosperity—a budget for the federal government.
The interconnectedness of these two events cannot be understated. Taken together, they have refocused a long-overdue debate about the proper role and scope of the federal government. This debate will undoubtedly continue in the months ahead and build to a crescendo in November, when the American people will have the opportunity to make a defining choice about what kind of nation we will be in the 21st century.
Perhaps no single issue crystallizes the choice before the American people and the contrast between the two parties more than health care. The differences between the President’s bureaucrat-centered model and the model advanced in the Path to Prosperity, which champions choice, competition, and individual control, could not be clearer.
The bureaucrat-controlled approach to health care may have begun with the best of intentions, but it quickly ran into the same problem that it always does: bureaucrats are terrible at setting prices in a market economy. As the federal government’s control over health care grew, bureaucratic mistakes started to cause serious problems. Government subsidies drove up costs; and health care became unaffordable for those who didn’t qualify for them. As a result, rising costs now threaten to leave our children buried under a mountain of debt.
As it usually does, this approach called for more and more power to be ceded to Washington in order to solve this problem—and for the first time ever, the unlimited power to force Americans to buy something. The result was “Obamacare.”
The President’s health care overhaul is emblematic of the wrong way to address the problems in health care and Medicare. The law raids Medicare by nearly $700 billion to fund a new, unsustainable, open-ended health care entitlement. It creates a government panel of bureaucrats with the power to impose price controls on providers in ways that would result in rationed care and restricted access to treatments. It vastly expands an already unwieldy administrative state by creating 159 new boards, commissions, and government programs. It is built around the flawed assumption that bureaucrats, if given power over the marketplace, can curb rising health care costs by expertly determining prices and dictating treatment options to doctors and patients.
Ultimately, this approach transforms the relationship between citizen and state, leaving individuals increasingly passive and dependent on their government. Further, it substantially diminishes the quality of and the access to care, as future policymakers cut costs to meet budgetary bottom lines rather than patients’ medical needs. There is no way for “experts” in Washington to know more about the health care needs of individual Americans than those individuals and their doctors know, nor should bureaucrats second-guess how each individual would prioritize services against costs.
The “fatal conceit” of the health care law stands in stark contrast to America’s historic commitment to individual liberty and personal responsibility. And the Supreme Court’s deliberations showed indications that the bureaucrat-centered approach is just not possible in America.
Our Constitution restricts the federal government to certain limited powers, and reserves all other powers to the states and the people. Our Founders trusted the American people, not an all-powerful federal government, to act in their own best interests. They trusted these actions would result in the greatest good for all. Their trust paid off: America became the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
The new health care law, which asserts unlimited power for the federal government to decide how Americans should get their health care, simply is not compatible with the Constitution.
In their deliberations, the Justices of the Supreme Court also raised a very salient point: If this is the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care, what comes next?
House Republicans showed them with the passage of Path to Prosperity, which offers a new approach—one that maintains a critical role for government but ultimately puts the American people in charge, as they should be.
For the second year in a row, Republicans in the House outlined a better way forward in health care. Our budget repeals the President’s health care overhaul and keeps the protections that made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years.
To the bureaucrats who have mismanaged the program into bankruptcy we say: Enough. Your approach doesn’t work. Government has never come up with a magic formula for lowering costs and improving quality. It’s time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions. Forcing insurance companies to compete is the only way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for seniors that will last for generations.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?