 August 26, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 34
Facta, Non Verba:
Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care by Newt Gingrich
Facta, non verba.
For those of you who have forgotten your Latin, it means "deeds, not words."
There's
been a lot of overheated rhetoric about health care reform, but this
saying is one that all Americans should return to when considering
plans for a government-dominated health system.
In other words, we should judge government, not by its words, but by its deeds.
With
this simple principle in mind, what follows are three examples why
government can't - and shouldn't - run our health care system (at least
not any health care system you or I would want to be dependent on). Reason No. 1: Government Can't Be Trusted With a Credit Card Every family knows about making a budget and living within its means. Government, to put it bluntly, does not.
What
if your husband had come home last Friday night and announced that he
had racked up almost 30 percent more debt on the family credit card -
including the mortgage and car loans - than he had told you about just
a month ago?
Would you trust him to go out and start spending money to remodel the kitchen? And do you think he could get a loan to do it?
But
that's exactly what the Obama Administration did with their weekend
news dump. They announced late Friday that the amount of money they
don't have but are nonetheless planning on spending over the next ten
years isn't the astonishing $7 trillion they estimated in May but is
instead an astounding $9 trillion.
Add this to the
fact that, after the administration sold its health care reform
proposal on the grounds that it will reduce costs to the Treasury, the
independent Congressional Budget Office determined that the House plan
will actually cost an astounding $1 trillion-$1.5 trillion in the next ten years, which will be added directly to the federal debt.
The director of the CBO testified before Congress last month that "[i]n
the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of
fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of
federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary,
the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for
health care costs."
Which do you have more faith in, the
government's happy talk of "bending the cost curve" or its record of
out-of-control spending?
Deeds, not words. Reason No. 2: Government Can't Even Give Away Money Effectively
As the inimitable Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, "Compared to
the infinite complexity of healthcare and health-insurance,
cash-for-clunkers is kindergarten stuff. You trade in your old car for
a new one that gets (slightly) better mileage and the government gives
you money - between $3,500 and $4,500. How hard is that?"
Too hard for government bureaucrats, it turns out.
Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood has boasted that the cash-for-clunkers program
provided "a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major
sector of the economy and putting people back to work.''
But look at the deeds, not the words.
Last week, cash-for-clunkers ended in a bureaucratic morass of red tape, failed promises and unanticipated costs. Air Traffic Controllers Manning the Cash-for-Clunkers Hotline Only a government bureaucracy could mess up a program designed to give away free money.
The government wizards who set up cash-for-clunkers initially budgeted to sell 250,000 cars in three months.
The program sold that many in four days.
And
because the central planners who think they can provide government
"competition" to the private health insurance market failed to
accurately estimate how many government workers it would take to
administer cash-for-clunkers, they had to take employees from the FAA -
air traffic controllers, no less - to help manage the demand.
And
what about the car dealerships the program was supposed to help in the
first place? Even though the rebates were supposed to be paid within 10
days, only 7 percent of federal promises under cash-for-clunkers have
been paid so far, leaving dealers with millions of dollars in unfunded
government promises. More Than Bureaucratic Incompetence, Political Business as UsualBut there's more to the cautionary tale of cash-for-clunkers than just bureaucratic incompetence.
This is a case study in what happens when politicians get involved in the marketplace.
Despite
all the rhetoric of jump starting the auto industry, politicians'
priorities are to give free goodies to their constituents. So as far as
they're concerned, cash-for-clunkers has been a resounding success.
Forget
the fact that they're spending money they don't have, or that car
dealerships are left holding millions of dollars in empty government
promises. They're not concerned with the long-term, just the next
election.
So tell us again why should we think bureaucrats and politicians will perform any better with our health care? Reason No. 3: Government Would Rather Pay Crooks Than Manage Efficiently
There's been a lot of worrying about the inevitability of government
rationing health care under the Democratic reform bills in Congress.
Economists have known about this inevitability for a long time. Well, Americans can stop worrying. Government is rationing care already - and doing it in a particularly stupid way.
Studies
have shown that early use of home health care after hospitalization -
allowing patients to go home and be visited by a nurse to manage their
care - saves Medicare billions of dollars.
So here is a case
where an innovative government program actually saves the government
money. Home health care is both more compassionate and more efficient.
It reduces the likelihood a patient will be readmitted to a hospital by
allowing her to heal in a more familiar setting. Home Health Care Works, So Naturally Medicare Bureaucrats Cut Its Funding
So naturally bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services cut $34 billion from this compassionate, efficient program
last week.
And if the House health care reform bill becomes
law, an additional $56.8 billion will be cut from the program - an
amount equal to almost the entire federal budget for home health care
services in 2007.
What makes rationing care to the homebound
all the more immoral is the fact that there is a much bigger pot of
savings available to Washington if it only had the political will to
look. Instead of Seeking Savings from the Homebound, Why Not the Crooks? As a new book by the Center for Health Transformation's Jim Frogue details, criminals rip off the taxpayers to the tune of $80 billion to $120 billion each year in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.
We're
not talking about inadvertent bill errors but outright fraud.
Government health programs are currently paying men maternity benefits,
giving taxpayer dollars to pizza parlors that are supposed to be HIV
transfusion centers, and even paying dead patients federal health care
benefits.
If ever there was a reason not to turn our entire
health care system over to government it is this: Government can't run
the health care programs it already has. It would rather ration
compassionate, effective programs than do the hard work of rooting out
and punishing the crooks who are stealing our taxpayer dollars. Facts are Stubborn Things Americans have already heard a lot of rhetoric about health care reform, and we can expect to hear a lot more.
But
as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. And the facts
of government's track record in managing our money and delivering on
its promises speak louder than any televised presidential speech or
stage-managed town hall ever could.
So as the summer winds down and the debate rages on, let this be our mantra:
Facta, non verba.
Make a bumper sticker out of it.
Put it on a tee-shirt and wear it to a town hall.
And
when someone asked you what it means, tell them that before we hand
over more of our lives to government, we should consider how they've
treated us so far.
| | Your friend,
Newt Gingrich |
Newt's Quick Links: - Real Change Is Back: I'm pleased to announce that the paperback version of my book, Real Change: From the World that Fails to the World that Works was No. 9 last week on the Washington Post bestseller list. To get a copy for yourself or someone you care about, click here.
|
Comments