It seems as though we are unable to have a sincere dialogue on health care. President Obama's recent speech on this issue once again showed that his eloquence might have been persuasive enough to lead to Congress' approval of his health care "reforms." Unfortunately, these proposals cannot effectively deal with the problems of health care.
As a result, when Obama says "I am not the first President to tackle this issue but I am determined to be the last," he is actually dealing with the issue of his reputation and the place his name will have in American history. This reveals why Americans are not completely sincere about health care reform.
From a political point of view, it is a simple issue. Consensus of the reforms is on a downward slope. According to a poll carried out by Kaiser Family Foundation, in April, 43 percent of those asked believed that the Obama reforms on the health care system would improve living conditions and only 14 percent believed that there would be a decrease, whereas in August these numbers were 36 percent and 31 percent respectively. Obama ought to convince more citizens of the benefits of his reforms in order to have their support.
Generally speaking, Americans have three expectations of their health care system. Firstly they want, as a matter of principle, for everyone to have access to medical care. Secondly, they believe that people should have their choices of doctors and treatments. Thirdly, the people want a reduction in costs.
In response to these expectations, Obama told the people what they wanted to hear. In other words, that the status quo of those satisfied with things as they are would not suffer any changes, that from now on all Americans would enjoy health care and that those unable to afford it would enjoy government funding to cover or augment the costs.
Concerning the cost of this project, there is no reason for concern. Obama claims that "by reducing excess expenditure and increasing efficiency in the existing Social Security system - known as Medicaid and Medicare - we will cover the cost of the new plan." He confirmed that he would not put his signature to anything that would "increase the national deficit even by 10 cents, not now and not in the future."
If you believe Obama, then you will most certainly support his proposals.
We cannot believe all the President says, however. If he were sincere - if we were all sincere - we would admit that not all parameters of the health care proposal can co-exist.
If we want health care for all as well as freedom of choice, then the cost will rise, as there is nothing to curtail it. This we can see in the existing system, which have sky-rocketed government health care allocations from five percent of the GDP in 1960, to 16 percent in 2007. This, of course, is due in part to the application of new technologies in medicine and to the increase in family incomes.
Studies carried out on the various proposals for the reform of the health care system have proven that long term goals far exceed long term funding abilities.
The main bill proposed, known as H.R. 3200, is expected to lead to an increase of the national deficit by $1 trillion in its second decade of operation (2020-2030). Government allocation to health care will reach 28 percent of the GDP by 2029.
So, how can Obama claim that costs will be curtailed? Congress has always placed safety valves on expenditure, but history has shown that, when push comes to shove, these safety valves are loosened or completely done away with.
If we desire health care for all and also freedom of choice, then we must accept increase in government expenditures. It thus is highly unlikely that there will not be an increase in taxation and spending.
To compound the problem of the plan's shortcomings, the right is intimidating voters by warping facts about the proposals.
Obama's opposition contends that the said reforms will cause the elderly to bear the brunt of the re-allocation of funding. In this display of insincerity what we see is the mentality of the American voter.
When we are called upon to make choices, we engage in partisan mudslinging and inaccuracies.
