Election Promises and Health Care Reform

We learned during the general election campaign and during the presidential transition that Barack Obama's campaign representations and promises are fungible and evanescent.  All of us need to learn to disregard everything we heard from Obama during the campaign.  We will need to pay heed to what he actually does over the next four years.  We should not place too much stock in what he says, because what he says cannot be trusted.

In the case of health care reform, we have heard much about what his policies will be.  But his campaign positions did not specify some important details. 

What did we actually hear during the campaign?  We heard that we would be able to keep our own insurance and our own doctors.  But at least one of Obama's stated plans will force patients to switch insurance and/or doctors.

We have also heard from Obama and his team that health care reform is essential to future economic growth and the economic recovery.    These statements are made even though health care is one of the few profitable sectors of the private economy right now with reasonably full employment.  I suppose the objective must be to damage that industry, and get it more under the bailiwick of the federal government.  But there is some reason to believe that efforts to further socialize the health care system might damage the economy.

The Cato Institute has generated some great work in these areas. 

Michael Cannon argues that we should stop any health care reform effort if it involves price controls, mandates or government-sponsored health care for the middle class.  He argues these would cause economic chaos, and also would cost lives.

And another Cato specialist, Michael Tanner, lays out what is at stake:

1. You could lose your current insurance.

2. You could lose the power for you and your doctor to decide what treatment you will receive.

3. You could lose the ability to spend your own money for the health care you want.

4. You could lose your current doctor.

5. You could lose access to the latest drugs and medical advancements.

6. And, of course, higher taxes.

Check out the entire article for all the details.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Good post, Joe.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Mary. You may have seen that the US House passed once again the S-CHIPS expansion (the equivalent of NC HealthChoice) so that more middle class families can have charity insurance for their kids. Even if Obama were not to succeed with whatever his larger vision turns out to be, the national Democrats steadfastly use incrementalism to gradually, increasingly socialize the system.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I did not (been too busy hammering the N&R for their sins against nurses). But it's not like this was unexpected.

Pediatrics is already socialized (via Medicaid) and corporatized to the nth degree . . . its providers (I hate that word) de-valved to the point that within a few years, I don't see it being a viable/fiscally-rewarding specialty that any sane medical student would perform the prerequisite years of indentured servitude to enter.

I've met a lot of enlightened young guns on the road. Because of the blogging, many of them these days are aware of who I am and what happened to me in Asheboro/public service. They are dismayed by the notion that it could also happen to them (because nothing has been done about it by government that says it cares).

Of course, being more cynical and skeptical than I was just might keep them safe.

I blogged on "The Death of Pediatrics" a while back: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2008/10/de-valuation-of-pediatricians-and-death.html

But, of course, you know that;)

One of the commenters on the thread said I was "mental".

Turns out not so much.

[Joe Guarino]

Mary, I agree with you that specialties like pediatrics, general internal medicine, perhaps neurology and a few others are particularly hard-hit because of high percentages of patients on Medicaid/Medicare. (And S-CHIPS for peds). The government controls the circumstances of care-- not a good situation in the long run.