After watching President Barack Obama's speech on a health care system that threatens to cede the means of production of yet another American industry to the federal government, one cannot help but feel a sense of bewilderment. It is easy to understand why the president and his counterparts in Congress want a government-subsidized health care system. Government officials seek to further their own ambitions and expand power without concern for the costs. Not satisfied with mere control over the banking and automotive industries of the United States, the current administration would have the scope of its power pushed to new heights by a government-run health care program. However, what is confusing is why so many Americans support this government interference.
One possible explanation for this is the call for government resurrection of a lagging economy. Obama's speech covered this when it framed the health care crisis as part of the "worst economy since the Great Depression." While the economic picture in the United States is by no means rosy, it has improved since the first few months of Obama's term in office. Thus, widespread panic over economic collapse has subsided. No, the reason Obama's plan has garnered support is because he presents it as the only practical solution to the health care problem. It is imperative to look beyond Obama's rhetoric and understand Obama's political motives for his health care plan. He and the Democratic Congress only wish to protect votes from Medicare recipients and further their own influence over the American people.
Obama complains about the current cost of government-run Medicare. He claims that Medicare and Medicaid currently place an "unsustainable burden" on taxpayers, saying, "Our health care problem is our deficit problem." He also states that rising health care costs are due to government-supported monopolies on health insurance in 34 states. From this, one can reasonably conclude that the problems with the United States health care system stem from excess government involvement. The sensible plan would be to reduce Medicare spending, break up health insurance monopolies and allow private competition to lower the cost of health care. Free market competition guarantees that companies will insure those in need of care, just as it guarantees coverage in auto, home and life insurance.
Despite the savings of a private health care system, Barack Obama and the Democrats will not eliminate government waste by reducing government control of health care. Simply put, it is political suicide for Obama or any other politician, be it a Democrat or Republican, to cut government health care entitlements. Indeed, Obama pledges to protect the Medicare program that is gobbling up billions of taxpayer dollars. He talks about the current waste in government while ignoring the fact that more government involvement would simply lead to more inefficiency.
He denounces the loss of competition in the health insurance market while neglecting to mention that a so-called "public option" would mirror these government-run monopolies. He disdains the "hidden taxes" that wealthy Americans are currently paying for health care, but these will not even compare to the taxes that will inevitably have to support the $900 billion proposal.
Obama's solution amounts to pouring more government money and resources into a system that is already inefficient and expensive due to government control. Yet he expects Americans to trust him when he says that government will reduce waste, make health care more affordable and limit budget deficits. Ultimately, Obama succeeds in gaining the trust of some Americans by spinning health care as a fundamental right. Following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, Obama wants us to believe that extending the influence of government is a means of preserving personal liberty.
One must not be fooled by this rhetoric. Liberty can only exist if citizens are sufficiently removed from government control. Obama's new system does not protect any of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Instead, it extends government influence further into the medical profession, the insurance business and the taxpayer's wallets. Any government health care system will prove costly and highly inefficient, just as the United States Postal Service still wastes resources, delivers mail slowly and hinders the business of other package delivery services. Even if private insurance companies can still operate alongside the public option, health care costs will remain high and the quality of health care will degenerate. In the end, while Obama and other government officials assume more control, it will be the American people making the sacrifices.
