Today was a bizarre day: first, I was approached by a woman at Starbuck’s who thought I was a liberal and then was sucked into a threaded discussion by what appeared to be a group of conservatives discussing whether or not the Ryan plan would save the Ponzi scheme we know as Medicare. I easily convinced the Starbuck’s patron she had seriously misjudged me. I am not so sure that I had any luck convincing anyone that whatever the Ryan plan “saves” is immaterial: Medicare in its current form is a Ponzi scheme much grander than anything Maddoff concocted and, not withstanding its arguable unconstitutionality, it is unsustainable on a purely economic basis.
To understand why Medicare and “entitlements,” in general, are economically unsustainable, one need only apply common sense and understand the simple psychological principle that all behavior is motivated, you only need to understand the motivation.
If the Government offers to an electorate a good or service, which they otherwise individually cannot afford, they demand it. “Hey, Kris is paying for it and, besides, I NEED it.”
Once the electorate becomes accustomed to receiving the good or service and figures out all they have to do is vote for it and not work to pay for it, they demand even more. “What’s going to happen to me, if I lose my coverage? I can’t afford it, but I can vote for Harry Reid, who will pass a law that Kris must pay for it, or he will go to prison. And besides, he can afford it.”
When the government cannot afford to cover the benefit anymore because too few people are working to support the “benefits” being drawn from the system (“tax revenues are down”), the Government passes euphemistically titled laws (“the Affordable Healthcare Protection Act”) to reduce the “price” (not the cost) of the good or service below what it actually costs to produce it ("make healthcare affordable for everyone"). This sends a false signal to the market that more supply exists than demand, so demand goes up further.
The people supplying the good or service (doctors in this case) become overwhelmed with work, are undercompensated for their work (hey, the government has set an “affordable’ price for the consumer), and are unable to invest in their practices because they are not covering their cost. Quality of care goes down, the practice suffers from lack of ongoing investment, and ultimately the doctor closes his practice or simply walks away.
Overwhelmed, the whole healthcare system collapses on itself and instead of price controlling the market, some so-called “overworked, underpaid” un-elected bureaucrat, who only works from 9 – 5, M-F rations healthcare. Waiting lines go up, and mortality rates for previously easily treatable, common diseases go up (but theoretically there is equality of outcome: “rich people” paying of the good or service die at the same average age as “poor people”).
The social progressives justify this healthcare scenario and other social programs as a “right” based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which states “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare [emphasis mine] of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” From a social progressive’s perspective, this authorizes limitless government spending to take care of the masses. Unfortunately, this was not the perspective of James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792 in a letter to Henry Lee, “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” [Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison, Eyre & Spottswoode (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970] Instead, the Founding Fathers saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for government provision of charity. Madison observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” [Madison, Hamilton, Jay in Federalist, No. 10] In other words, if charity were the responsibility of the government, the process would be (and has) become compromised and politicians would conspire with special interest to trade votes.
What is it about logic and common sense that liberals do not get? If they wish to better mankind, then they should eliminate an inefficient, ineffective government from being the middleman and use the wealth THEY create to: (1) directly meet the needs they see; (2) build and invest in non-profits; or (3) ASK their family, friends, or church for a handout. If asking is so painful, perhaps they would opt to get a job.
Progressives have perverted the old sayings that served this country well: instead of “charity starts at HOME,” they believe “charity starts at HUD.”
If something does not change, we all will need to learn the new progressive tagline: “you SHOULD GET MORE than what you pay for.”
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
