The Current Health Care Finance System is Broken and Should be Replaced

There have been numerous comments about the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) otherwise known as Obamacare.

Advocates of the ACA stress its goals of providing health care insurance coverage to more Americans and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Those in opposition to the Act (as approved by the Court) point to its deficiencies primarily in the Act's mandates which limit individual freedom of choice, increased taxes (and the government's authority to impose them) and a rise in spending when we can least afford it.

Our current system for financing  health care is broken. Since it is based on reimbursement of fees charged and not a competitive price structure, it has grown in costs and inefficiencies. Efforts to fix it by top down bureaucratic micromanagement have only aggravated its problems. No amount of tinkering, including Obamacare, can fix it.  It should be replaced in its entirety.

The goals for a new financing system should be simplicity, efficient and sound health care administration, lower costs to the consumer and meet the constitutional criteria for individual rights of free choice.

Since our Republic's beginning, the system that has best met these criteria and been the engine of unprecedented prosperity has been that of free enterprise.  History has shown in this country and others that government run economies lead to a loss of individual freedom and economic stagnation.

The answer to the health care problem should be clear. As a start, Obamacare should be repealed and  replaced with a system of competitive private insurance able to compete in all states. Over time persons who become eligible for Medicare should have the option of choosing private coverage over the Medicare system.  In order to provide coverage to most persons, government could subsidize insurance premiums for a stipulated program for those in need. As to preexisting conditions, an assigned risk pool, preferably administered by the individual states, should meet the need.

Now is not the time for half-measures. On this Independence Day, we should strive for a health care financing system that respects the individual right to freedom and meets his/her health care needs.

A Short Hiatus

After a short hiatus in following political events (and posting to the blog), I realize that truly significant political events occur infrequently. One such event was the Supreme Court's decision this week regarding Arizona's immigration law. The Court found that Arizona police could question persons who they had reason to believe were in the country illegally. However, the Court limited the police power by denying them the power of arrest in such instances. Also voided were parts of the law that made certain actions by undocumented residents a state crime by virtue of their status. However much that the Obama administration may declare victory in this case, we should remember that Arizona (and other states) have carried the major burden of the inaction of the federal government to enforce its own laws. Since the courts have now closed the option for state remedy, the only viable option is for action at the federal level. The problem of illegal immigration has festered too long. We, as a country, should be embarrassed by the lack of resolution. Both sides can blame the other but the fact remains that compromise will be required to resolve this issue and get it behind us. It is time for politicians of all persuasions to get off the soap boxes and start working with each other in the public interest.

The Road Ahead: The Choice in Nov. Becomes Clearer.

This has been a watershed week.

Last Tuesday, June 5, the voters in Wisconsin decided to continue Gov. Scott Walker in office in a recall election.  In this weekend's "The Wall Street Journal" in an article titled: "What's Changed After Wisconsin", Peggy Noonan states: "The big meaning of Wisconsin is that a public injustice is in the process of being righted because a public mood is changing."

The "public injustice" referred to is that public employees in Wisconsin were being compensated better than the average private worker (and taxpayer).  Gov. Walker reduced government costs by reducing pension and health care costs; he did not lay off public employees. The governor (and others) have shown that it is possible to cut spending in a rational way without endangering public safety and education as the unions allege.

On Friday, June 8, President Obama said in a news conference: "The private sector is doing fine." He went on to say that "Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government--oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."(WSJ editorial in this weekend's edition).

The editorial goes on to say that in fact state and local revenues have increased 6% over the last two years and that the president continues to believe "--that the more government spending is the key to faster growth and that government really doesn't need to reform."  I would add that the president seems indifferent about our national debt and unsustainable public spending; perhaps he missed that class in economics 101.

Finally, during the past week, the Obama team seems in disarray. As Peggy Noonan stated in the above cited article: "It just increasingly looks like a house of cards". She points out the president's avoidance of the Wisconsin recall election, his recent misstatement about spending in his administration,  breaches of security in Washington and Bill Clinton's statements about Mitt Romney's "sterling record" and other comments by Clinton regarding tax policy and campaign tactics. Noonan concludes: "But maybe Bubba's looking at the president and seeing what far more than half of Washington sees: a man who is limited, who thinks himself clever, and who doesn't know that clever right now doesn't cut it."

The final record of this historical campaign will not be fully known until November. There are some important events yet to occur. The Supreme Court will shortly announce its decision on the issues raised by Obamacare, Republicans will choose a vice president nominee and conventions and debates will take place.

But the positions that define each nominee are now in clear focus. President Obama represents big government, more spending and debt, a diminished economy and lost opportunities for all. The contrast with the Romney position couldn't be clearer: limited government, less spending, free enterprise, a growing economy and greater opportunity and freedom for all.

Romney's Position on Key Issues

On the key issues of the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has stated positions which reflect the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

In order to grow the economy, create jobs and reduce the size of government, he has made specific proposals on taxes, spending and government regulations and programs as well as plans to increase trade, energy production and other areas which affect the economy.

The following is a brief summary of Romney's positions on some of the key issues. A more detailed and complete description can be found at http://www.mittromney.com/issues.

     *Taxes: Advocates a 20% cut in marginal rates across the board for individual taxpayers. Would cut corporate tax rates from the current 35% to 25% so that U.S. corporations would be more competitive in today's global economy.

     *Spending: His goals are to cut spending to 20% of GDP (vs. 24.3% last year), return non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels, build a "simpler, smaller, smarter government" (repeal Obamacare, privatize Amtrak, reduce subsidies to arts and humanities etc, eliminate family planning funds and reduce foreign aid) and other measures.

     *Regulations: Require Congressional approval for new major regulations, reform of the legal liability system and streamline and modernize business regulations.

     *Energy: Supports pipelines to bring Canadian energy to the U.S., implement procedures to facilitate domestic oil and natural gas reserves and encourage further investment in nuclear power.

     *Medicare: Favors reform by changing to a premium support system where seniors would receive a fixed amount to buy private insurance; the current Medicare program would stay in place for seniors who prefer that option.

     *Social Security: Advocates a plan that "for future generations of seniors---the retirement age should be slowly increased for increases in longevity". Has also stated that benefits should continue to grow but "the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes".

Any decision on who to vote for in this year's presidential election should take into account not only the candidate's policy positions but also his experience, leadership ability, character and intelligence. Given all of these factors, I believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate to lead the country in the critical times ahead.

The Obama Administration: A Risky Experiment that Failed

What are the reasons Barack Obama was elected to the presidency in 2008?

His obvious strengths were that he spoke well and with his election, would represent an important milestone in America's race relations. On policy issues, his main message was hope and change but except for the Iraq war, he was not specific.

However, in such areas as experience, positions on many important issues, personal background and values, we knew next to nothing.

We now have more information based on actual performance. If we are to be objective, his presidency should be judged a failure.  To have elected Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was a risk that the country should not have taken.

What else should one conclude from a president who has:

     *Increased the national debt by $5 trillion during his term (so far) and shows little regard for its effects,

     *Frittered away billions for so called "stimulus" expenditures, bailouts and loans to industry that will never be repaid or were wasted on pet projects such as Solyndra (which went bankrupt),

     *Signed a health care bill whose repercussions are not fully understood, is costly, does not have public support and includes an individual mandate that is most likely unconstitutional,

     *Issued regulations to religious organizations that mandated their participation in medical procedures that are counter to their beliefs and in defiance of the first amendment to the Constitution,

     *Failed to lead the country to solve our problems (most notably the economy) but instead sought to evade responsibility by blaming almost everyone else and thereby dividing the country with his accusations,

     *Espoused more spending and bigger government despite our huge debt and in disregard of constitutional principles,

     *Apologized for America's alleged mistakes while ignoring our rightful actions through history and  demonstrated an arrogance and disdain for America's proper role in the world?

Based on his record, he should not be reelected.

The Road to November

The presidential campaign has now evolved into a predictable pattern; that is, the main issues are in the forefront but are frequently sidelined. Topics which most voters would consider as not their top priority, such as gay marriage and alleged character issues of the candidates for instance, often gain the spotlight. But as of now, the most important issues are the economy and the size of government.

When Bill Clinton first ran for president in 1992, his political mantra was "It's the economy, stupid." That sentiment is also applicable today. Our economic growth is anemic and employment levels unsatisfactory. We are fast approaching a $16 trillion debt, a debt we cannot support for long unless we change economic course.

The approach we take to solve these problems will be ours to choose in November. The Democrats call for more government stimulus and spending, an idea of uncertain provenance, which will result in more debt. The Republican approach is to rely on the free enterprise system to grow the economy, which historically, America has been at the forefront.

Current polls of voter sentiment are inconclusive and often contradictory. During the next six months there are some significant events on the horizon that will impact election results. Domestically, they include economic factors such as growth and unemployment, the Supreme Court's pending decisions on health care, gay marriage and a state's right to enforce immigration laws and actions pending in Congress to raise the debt limit and potential bills related to taxes and spending. In foreign affairs, there is the possible implosion of the EU and the euro and the potential threat to peace posed by Iran.

All of the above factors plus any unforeseen events will have an effect on the election. What that will be depends on the candidates' reactions to actual events and crises and the subsequent public evaluation of which candidate can best lead the country.

Have They No Sense of Decency?

During the late 1940's and early 1950's, Senator Joseph McCarthy used unethical methods to uncover what he perceived as communist infiltration of the government and other institutions. His methods of intimidation, innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations destroyed many careers and reputations.

At a hearing of a Senate Committee which he chaired, and after he bullied a number of witnesses, Senator McCarthy was asked by a Boston lawyer, Joseph Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, Sir--?". Not long after, the Senator was censured by the Senate for behavior "contrary to senatorial traditions" and his influence effectively came to an end.

In today's political climate, candidates, especially those who lack or have a meager record of accomplishments and qualifications, may attempt to deflect the debate even to the point of stereotyping, name calling and using outright fabrications in regard to their opponents.

No good can come of such tactics. They poison the political atmosphere, lead to confusion and divisiveness and they make it even more difficult to discuss concrete solutions to our very real problems.

During the past week, the Obama campaign and its allies have initiated a process of referring to their opponents as racists, homophobic and misogynists.  From that, one can conclude that they don't intend to run on their record and are devoid of any realistic solutions. One can further conclude that they are so ideologically bound that, to them, their ends justify the means even if they are detrimental to the country's well-being.

Have they no sense of decency?