The Cold Hard Truth about Obamacare, by Mark Bove'

The debate over healthcare reform has become synonymous with government-run and government-mandated health insurance. For Democrats, implementing a wide-reaching system of government health insurance is the only option on the table.

Opponents, both those in Congress and the general public, point to a number of inevitable, and troubling, consequences of a government-run healthcare program. Among these concerns are lack of meaningful choice, the disruption of the patient/doctor relationship, the collapse of the private health insurance industry and astronomical costs to be offset by new tax increases.

Public option 

The public option, argue many, will effectively destroy the private health insurance industry. Though Democrats claim the public option will “compete” with private insurers, the playing field will be tipped heavily in favor of the government-run option.  

One reason that private insurers will be at a disadvantage is that the public option will be subsidized through taxpayer dollars. The federal treasury has deep, arguably limitless, pockets against which private insurers simply cannot compete.  

Many believe that this lack of true competition is nothing more than a backdoor path to the eventual government takeover of all healthcare in the nation.  

Massive shift to government-run healthcare 

Under the current proposal, employers must either provide their employees with healthcare or pay a fine. The major concern is that it would make more financial sense for the employer to simply pay the fine rather than subsidize employee health insurance.

The upshot is that millions of Americans would be forced into the public option because they will be dropped from their current plan. In fact, studies estimate that as many as 120 million Americans will be forced to shift from private insurance to a government-run system. Again, the proposed public option would essentially wipe out private health insurance

Interference between doctors and patients

A government-run healthcare program would view healthcare in terms of cost rather than the relationship between a patient and their doctor. Medicare is a prime example of the limits that government healthcare programs place on a patient’s access to treatments and procedures if the government considers them to be “ineffective.” Opponents to the House’s proposed healthcare reform argue that this is nothing more than rationing in disguise.

A government bureaucracy has already been put in place to oversee the rationing of healthcare. In February, the Comparative Effectiveness Research Council was created to undertake the task of determining the cost effectiveness of various treatment options.

If the council determines that a given procedure or prescription is too expensive, then it will not be covered by the insurance, regardless of its ability to improve or even save a patient’s life. Life-saving care would be denied by a government bureaucracy. The end result is that the government, not the patient and their doctor, will determine a patient’s course of treatment.

Surprisingly, none of the 15 members of this council is a practicing physician.

The cost of government-run healthcare

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a cost estimate of more than $1 trillion to the national deficit over the course of 10 years in order to pay for the proposed healthcare reform plan. The report was released on the very same day that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders revealed their plan for government-run health insurance called “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.”

Where is this $1 trillion going to come from? Tax increases. Democrats are advocating for a surtax to be charged on individuals who earn a minimum of $280,000 and families with a combined income of at least $350,000. This surtax plan amounts to a $540 billion tax increase.

In addition to the surtax, taxpayers in upper income brackets will be looking at yet another tax hike. President Obama has already stated his intentions to let the tax cuts implemented by President Bush expire in 2010. The upshot is that the current 33% and 35% income tax rates will jump to 36% and 39.6% , respectively.

Shifting the cost burden to private citizens

Medicare is a good example of how private citizens subsidize the costs of government program patients’ healthcare. For example, Medicare only pays doctors 81% and hospitals 71% of what private insurance companies pay. Who makes up the difference? The cost is shifted to the individuals, most of whom have private insurance, who are not covered by a government healthcare program.

Fixed prices are inevitably going to be a part of any public option. For taxpayers, this means yet another forced subsidy for someone else’s healthcare.

Conclusion 

For Democrats and proponents of government-run health insurance, the end game is control of the federal government over all aspects of a private individual’s healthcare. Should this legislation pass, the private health insurance industry will collapse, leaving Americans with no choice but to submit to the public option, making it far from “optional” at all.