Click to Enlarge

Ronald Reagan once observed, “The closest thing to immortality on this earth is a federal government program.” Government-run heath care would create an endless circle of bureaucratic nightmares for Americans to navigate.

Incidentally, the Democrats have blocked Republican House Members from sending the above chart to their constituents. They claim it is not an accurate depiction. Of course, they also claim we have to spend money to avoid bankruptcy (i.e. Joe Biden).

A Washington Times article by Jennifer Haberkorn describes some of these new government overseers who will regulate our lives even further. Democrats claim this “bureaucratic infrastructure is necessary to administer the expansion of health care benefits to the tens of millions of uninsured Americans while creating more competition for private insurers to drive down out-of-control costs.”

Again, the Democrats draw a false comparison between insurance and medical care. Everyone who needs medical care can get it. Most of the so-called uninsured are young people who chose to forgo it, while poor people already have access to Medicaid and other programs. Does 10-15 million without insurance (not medical care) out of a nation of 300 million justify a government takeover of the entire medical system?

Furthermore, the government will not increase “competition” with itself. Democrats would have us believe they can drive costs down to such a degree that it will offset the increase in taxes everyone will pay, and yet still make private insurance affordable. This won’t happen. Most people will be forced onto a government program. This alleged increase in competition could not occur.

It is virtually guaranteed that government-run health care will end up costing far more than the predicted $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Medicare was set up in 1965, with a projected cost in 1990 of $3 billion — which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion — over eight times as much.

Democrats have accused critics of not having any ideas. This is not true, as a number of proposals have been offered; it’s just that Democrats don’t like any of them. There are certainly better ways to go about reform, but they involve market-based solutions. Why is tort reform absent from the Democrats’ bill? Because Democrats do not care about stopping frivolous lawsuits when a big part of their power base is trial lawyers (Sen. John Edwards made his fortune this way).

Some of the ways in which health care can be reformed without increasing costs and reducing the quality of care:

• Allow greater competition among health care providers
• Decrease costly regulations that increase costs
• Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines
• Bring down the cost of malpractice insurance by reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits, which drives up costs

Much of the bill’s programs would fall under the Health and Human Services Department’s new Health Choices Administration, which would be headed by a health choices commissioner. Other agencies would be impacted as well. The Internal Revenue Service, for instance, would face new responsibilities to help the government track who has insurance on federal tax forms.

The Democrats seem convinced that expanding government, which means hiring countless paper-pushers and bureaucrats at taxpayers’ expense, will somehow save money. There is no reason to believe that the Democrats’ health care plan will yield any different results from other nations that have nationalized medical care. Eventually we will see a decrease in the quality of care due to shortages, which will result in rationing, and greatly increase waiting times for procedures. Ultimately, the Democrats’ plan will not save money or lives, and it’s the American people who will pick up the bill.