Observations on Obamacare
By Randall Holcombe • Wednesday November 18, 2009 10:01 AM PDT • 7 Comments
In Newsweek, November 16, 2009, p. 20, Fareed Zakaria says, “There are two general health-care crises in America — one involving coverage and the other cost. The Obama plan appears likely to tackle the first but not the second. This is bad economics but also bad politics: the crisis of cost affects 85 percent of Americans, while the crisis of coverage affects about 15 percent. Obama’s message to the country appears to be ‘We have a dysfunctional health-care system with out-of-control costs, and let’s add 45 million people to it.’”
In Newsweek, November 23, 2009, p. 21, Robert J. Samuelson criticizes President Obama for saying the proposed health care reform will control costs and reduce government spending as government-financed health care is extended to millions of additional people. He says, “The disconnect between what Obama says and what he’s doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president and his allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.”
One might expect criticisms like this from Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but these criticisms appeared in Newsweek, which advertises its pro-government bias. Speaking of Sarah Palin, the cover of the November 23 edition in which Samuelson’s column appears features a photo of her (looking very good in her jogging atire) with the caption, “HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE SARAH? SHE’S BAD NEWS FOR THE GOP — AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE TOO.” And just a few weeks ago the cover featured a photo of Al Gore, with the caption, “THE THINKING MAN’S THINKING MAN.”
When Newsweek, a magazine that promotes it’s pro-government, and pro-Democrat, bias, is running columns critical of Obamacare, that suggests that its shortcomings are recognized across the political spectrum. These aren’t just minor criticisms either. Zakaria says the Obama plan would add to “a disfunctional health-care system with out-of-control costs,” and Samuelson accuses President Obama of “willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.”
The question then is: if it is so easy to see the faults, why does Obama, and his party, keep pushing something so obviously flawed. The only answer I can think of is politics. They said they were going to pass health care reform, they ran on that platform, and now they are determined to do it despite the widespread recognition that if they succeed the outcome will make the nation worse off.
Tags: Economics, Healthcare, Integrity, Politics, The State 
The goal of this legislation is to grow government, to increase its power, and to stamp out individual autonomy. In that regard, the House version is a resounding success. That it would lead to even higher costs, increased fraud, rationing, and needless suffering and death is not particularly important to the political elite.
Steve Hogan | Nov 18, 2009 | Reply
I think you have to go beyond saying it is politics. The recent election and the polls show that there is a general dissatisfaction with incumbents and with the Democrat’s healthcare plans. Independent voters have moved away from supporting the Democrats. The healthcare obstinacy will cost the Democrats future elections. The elected Democrats are aware of the problem, but persist in pushing healthcare.
Continuing to push a plan that is so obviously off the mark from achieving cost controls or improvement in the health plans of current users will only cost the Democrats more votes and elections.
It is an extreme case of tunnel vision and of obsessive allegiance to a plan. It is an attempt to maintain a sense of control and structure when one perceives they have lost control and are frightened. It is almost like a mental breakdown. In this kind of weakened mental state, other decision-making suffers from paralysis and delays, such as Afghanistan.
It is frightening, but so far it is only healthcare and all related decisions and legislation can be undone or modified as needed.
In international matters, second chances are not as easy to come by.
Milton Recht | Nov 18, 2009 | Reply
I think they’re doing it to posture as friends of the downtrodden, and to provide a captive market to the insurance industry.
Anthony Gregory | Nov 19, 2009 | Reply
As others have said, it is very possible the Dims are willing to fall on their swords to get HC passed. Once that happens it will be hard to overturn, regardless if they are replaced in office. Meanwhile the electorate will be further corrupted by HC and inclined to vote for it and the Dims. All this not to mention, the liberal pseudo religion of socialist compassion is not a rational belief system. They truly believe they are doing the right thing whatever the consequences.
Robt. Suden | Nov 23, 2009 | Reply
It would be interesting to compile opinions from each member of Congress who has taken the Hippocratic Oath.
Frank Lee | Nov 24, 2009 | Reply
All of Congress, the Executive are the corps poodles. Either we get representation, or more of the bottom to the top financing of the parasites of most of us. Real change, not slogans speeches, then another betrayal, less war, more health care, regulation, education. The Friedman model is the wrong avenue. It’s what we’re seeing now.
Ecoalex | Nov 24, 2009 | Reply
First, it’s not now, nor has it ever been about “Health care” we have the best health care in the world (where else can you be diagnosed with a brain tumor on Monday at 2:00 pm, in Phoenix, AZ, and be under the knife in Los Angeles, CA by 11:00 am the following day?)… it’s about Insurance – Period (well, and the obvious power that comes along with insurance). The final version that we will get will be a mirror of the “Fix” that we got for our “retirement crisis” 70 years ago. We’ll have to pay the government for health insurance – at the point of a gun (as we now do with SSI), and we will have to buy our own private health insurance on the side if we actually want to be covered (as we now do with 401ks and IRAs).
That said, the sooner that they pass this boondoggle the sooner we can get on with the hyperinflation, the sooner the dollar can crash, the sooner we can replace it with the Amero, the sooner that can fail, the sooner we can revolt, the sooner we can reestablish liberty, the sooner the new government can start to grow too large – wash – rinse – repeat.
It’s too late to turn the ship around, it needs to be sunk, we hop on the life boats, get picked up by a boat headed in the same wrong direction, and once on shore build a better boat and sail back to freedom.
Sad, but that’s the way mankind has done it since time immemorial, and that’s how we’ll have to do it here, at least we won’t have to deal with the burden being a super-power anymore...
joe4liberty | Nov 25, 2009 | Reply