Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care

Felix The Assassin · 08-29-2009, 09:27 AM

Yes, I know, "A wall of text", but some times people forget what they are supposed to do, and this is just a friendly reminder.

Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care
by Newt Gingrich

08/26/2009

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 Usual
But 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

SpiritWarrior · 08-29-2009, 10:06 AM

Ack! I now have to talk to my insurance company about getting treatment for sore eyes, and they're gonna screw me for every penny I have!

If only there was a cheaper, regulated option I could choose...

Felix The Assassin · 08-29-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior

Ack! I now have to talk to my insurance company about getting treatment for sore eyes, and they're gonna screw me for every penny I have!

If only there was a cheaper, regulated option I could choose...

Good point. If the right wing nuts could stop bashing long enough to formulate a counter, yet productive plan, then maybe something will change!

Firestormalpha · 08-29-2009, 10:25 AM

Actually, this one gave me some semblence of organization to the information. And the logic is actually pretty sound.

Froberg · 08-29-2009, 10:42 AM

Strange how private hospitals and public ones work FINE side by side here in Denmark..

Oh well. Guess we are just weird.

SpiritWarrior · 08-29-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin

Good point. If the right wing nuts could stop bashing long enough to formulate a counter, yet productive plan, then maybe something will change!

This is my shocked, (but pleased) face. :-|

Felix The Assassin · 08-29-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior

This is my shocked, (but pleased) face. :-|

You know well enough I'm a centrist with conservative values. I have no qualms questioning any politician, or policy, or bashing any for that matter. The current political state is numbing, and nobody has anything worth while to pitch this no-hitter dry spell.

SpiritWarrior · 08-29-2009, 02:02 PM

I know very well that you're a centrist...? Wtf? Where in holy hell were you during the last 8 years and why weren't you bashing the sweet hell out of the administration who actually did, in fact, fail?

Felix The Assassin · 08-29-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior

I know very well that you're a centrist...? Wtf? Where in holy hell were you during the last 8 years and why weren't you bashing the sweet hell out of the administration who actually did, in fact, fail?

I was part of it. And worked for it when i was no longer a part of it.

Now again, am a part of it. However, without an oath of office this time.

ElfBane · 08-30-2009, 07:56 AM

Felix, we have a pretty good deal in our retired healthcare. Do you REALLY think TriCare is that bad?

08-29-2009, 09:27 AM	#1
Felix The Assassin The Dreadnoks Join Date: September 27, 2001 Location: Orlando, FL Age: 61 Posts: 3,608	Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care Yes, I know, "A wall of text", but some times people forget what they are supposed to do, and this is just a friendly reminder. Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care by Newt Gingrich 08/26/2009 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 Usual But 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 __________________ The Lizzie Palmer Tribute Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy 35th President of The United States The Last Shot Honor The Fallen Jesus died for our sins, and American Soldiers died for our freedom. If you don't stand behind our Soldiers, please feel free to stand in front of them.

08-29-2009, 10:06 AM	#2
SpiritWarrior Jack Burton Join Date: May 31, 2002 Location: Ireland Posts: 5,854	Re: Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care Ack! I now have to talk to my insurance company about getting treatment for sore eyes, and they're gonna screw me for every penny I have! If only there was a cheaper, regulated option I could choose... __________________ Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon...

08-29-2009, 10:25 AM	#4
Firestormalpha Knight of the Rose Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Coral Springs, Fl USA Age: 40 Posts: 4,454	Re: Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care Actually, this one gave me some semblence of organization to the information. And the logic is actually pretty sound. __________________ "When you start with a presupposition, it's hard to arrive at any other conclusion." "We are never to judge a philosophy by its abuse." - Augustine "If you're wondering if God has a sense of humor, consider the platypus." http://www.greaterthings.cbglades.com

08-29-2009, 10:42 AM	#5
Froberg The Magister Join Date: August 16, 2004 Location: Denmark Age: 38 Posts: 126	Re: Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care Strange how private hospitals and public ones work FINE side by side here in Denmark.. Oh well. Guess we are just weird. __________________ Real men don't take backups. They cry.

08-29-2009, 02:02 PM	#8
SpiritWarrior Jack Burton Join Date: May 31, 2002 Location: Ireland Posts: 5,854	Re: Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care I know very well that you're a centrist...? Wtf? Where in holy hell were you during the last 8 years and why weren't you bashing the sweet hell out of the administration who actually did, in fact, fail? __________________ Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon...

08-30-2009, 07:56 AM	#10
ElfBane Mephistopheles Join Date: March 21, 2004 Location: Cape Canaveral, FL Age: 69 Posts: 1,443	Re: Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care Felix, we have a pretty good deal in our retired healthcare. Do you REALLY think TriCare is that bad? __________________ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. Iraq and Afghan fatalities: 6,855 and counting. Silence IS consent.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
illegal immigrants not getting health care.	Havock	General Discussion	4	11-03-2006 04:41 PM
illegal immigrants not getting health care.	Havock	General Discussion	2	11-03-2006 08:32 AM
Home Health Care	Lord of Alcohol	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	10	06-14-2003 11:09 AM
Universal Health Care in the U.K.	MagiK	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	10	06-03-2003 08:07 PM
Health care	Conan	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	26	06-22-2001 09:22 AM