WhatFinger


American taxpayers, $1-trillion budget deficit

“Yes We Can” becomes “No We Can’t” After Election



image“No We Can’t” would seem to be a more realistic chant for the ongoing campaign that continues after Barack Obama was elected President. Chief among his campaign promises and the brightest star in the sky was a pledge to “lower healthcare costs and ensure affordable, high-quality healthcare for all”.

Support Canada Free Press


Like many things out on the campaign trail, sounds good in theory; all but impossible once safely in office. The well with the words “American taxpayers” inscribed on the bucket is going bone dry. “America now faces a $1-trillion budget deficit, the highest since World War II. War sending is just a fraction of that amount. The main culprit here is irresponsible spending by Congress.” These are facts, not hurled at Obama by political enemies, but ones revealed by Nina Owcharenko, a senior policy analyst in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies. “The Recession has only worsened the budget situation...and encouraged politicians to promise even more unaffordable spending,” Owcharenko warns. “The final tab for all the bailouts and economic “stimulus” proposals will be staggering.” “Coming on top of that, Obama’s health bill would be crushing. The Lewin Group, an independent econometric modeling firm, and the Urban Institute/Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimate its price tag at $1.17 trillion and $1.6 trillion, respectively. There are a few ways around this, but as the experts point out, none of them good. “The new Administration and Congress may decide to pay for the new program by taxing businesses and individuals more. Rising taxes in such insecure economic times would be highly irresponsible, making it more difficult for businesses to make payroll. It can force pay cuts, or even layoffs. “Free” health insurance isn’t a good bargain when the price is a pay cut or the loss of your job. “An alternative approach may be to call for up-front “investments” with the promise they’ll produce long-term savings. “Obama has talked up delivery reforms, such as comparative effectiveness and widespread use of health information technology as a way to improve quality and contain costs. “Yet, Peter Orzag, Obama’s pick to lead his Office of Management and Budget, has warned that policymakers would have to ensure these techniques are aggressively adopted to maximize their benefits.
 Check in on Tom Daschle, Obama’s choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, for a contemporary definition of “aggressive reforms”. In his recent book, Daschle calls for a powerful Federal Health Board to make key decisions over what kind of health coverage, and what kind of medical treatments, Americans could get. This board would be independent of Congress, the White House, and as Owcharenko points out, independent of citizens too. Unfortunately, the only way to get the promised savings is to (1) squeeze reimbursements to hospitals, physicians and other healthcare providers and/or (2) limit patient access to care and treatment. Limiting patient access to care and treatment in an era when the population is aging presents a scary picture. It’s true that those techniques are used in socialized systems in Canada and the United Kingdom. It is also true that waiting lists for elective surgery in Canada are long and people sometimes die waiting for operations. True, too that the majority of doctors are not taking on new patients and that authorities have had to clamp down on the incidence of super bugs on the loose in hospitals nation wide. Besides, these Canadian and British techniques are also already in use in the U.S. in already existing other government health plans, like Medicaid. “So how’s that working? Owcharenko asks. “Well, fewer physicians are now willing to accept new Medicaid patients--in part because of lousy reimbursements. Patient access to prescription drugs is restricted. And more and more Medicaid patients are clogging emergency rooms seeking routine care--further driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone. “A third option for Congress: Simply ignore the price tag. Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the senate Finance Committee has indicated he’s willing to push aside the PAYGO rules for a health bill. “Congressional Democrats adopted these rules--which require spending increases to be “offset” with spending cuts or tax hikes--to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Well bye-bye fiscal discipline, hello crushing debt. “Massive health reform proposal is very difficult--and extremely expensive. As the new Administration calls for nationwide community “listening sessions” on health reform, participants would do well to ask themselves how much more they are willing to pay for health coverage and how many benefits and treatments they are willing to forsake in order to bring this campaign promise to life.” Promises of healthcare for all sounds like a lifebuoy out on the election campaign, but reveals a devouring monster once you see what you have under the full lights of the operating room. Can anybody say, “No We Can’t”? (Readers may write to Nina Owcharenko at Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington DC 20002-4999).


View Comments

Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives -- Judi McLeod, Founder, Owner and Editor of Canada Free Press, is an award-winning journalist with more than 30 years’ experience in the print and online media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared throughout the ‘Net, including on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Sponsored