by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, October 23, 2009
Just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water…Jaws II! I remember the ominous voice of the narrator from that movie trailer in the late 70’s. I, like many others, had experienced the terror of the first movie. My mind still carries the image of a sharpened dorsal fin breaking the surface of the water as organ music built to a crescendo. This image created a healthy fear that I carried with me each time I visited the beach.
Well, here we are with a very similar scenario. The first health care overhaul bill inspired many to get off their couches and to use their God-given right of free expression to voice their concerns and fears. Their voices were heard and Senator Baucus and company went back to the studio otherwise known as Capitol Hill and produced another movie that is just as frightening as the first. However, just as with the dreaded shark, we can only see the fin above the water at this point, because most of the details – i.e. the sharp teeth and crushing jaws – are below the surface.
Suffice it to say that the fin is enough to make most intelligent bathers head for the shore.
I downloaded and scanned through several pages of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) report to Senator Baucus with their analysis of the long-term costs of the bill as it was presented to them. I was able to see, for example, the much publicized figure of $829 billion over ten years that it would add to the Federal deficit.
I was also able to read how the projected savings to the health care consumer would be accomplished. I felt a small shudder of fear when I read the details on page seven about how Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors would be reduced proportionately; because I read a small detail hidden below the surface in the third paragraph where the simple phrase: “These recommendations would go into effect immediately unless blocked by subsequent legislative action” lurks like the teeth and jaws of a great white shark. That simple phrase should be enough to tear the $829 billion figure apart and send it floating to the depths in a trail of scarlet, because we all know that “legislative action” almost always blocks real cuts in any government program. But wait, there’s more to come.
A more careful analysis of page four shows us another row of teeth when we read that state spending on Medicaid will increase by about $33 billion. Do I need to tell you where the states will get that money? Well, we all know it will come from the state income taxes and from the local municipalities who will get it from the property owners and businesses.
Hidden toward the end of the CBO analysis is the fact that the payments to doctors will increase during 2010 (hmmm…maybe it has something to do with Congressional elections?) and then they take a 25% reduction the following year. And each subsequent year, the payment rate will be set below the rate of inflation. Sounds like a recipe for reducing the number of doctors and the quality of care, to me.
The bill also includes penalties and excise taxes like the 40% excise tax on all high premium health care policies. This tax and the extra costs and liabilities thrust upon corporations would not occur in a vacuum. Extra taxes, fees and penalties always find their way into the prices paid by consumers. So, even if the CBO was completely accurate with their analysis and if our congressmen and congresswomen were able to restrain themselves from “blocking these reductions by subsequent legislative action” and our deficit only rose by the projected 829 billion dollars, this bill is still a fearful thing to swim around with.
It is a frightening thing because of the overall premise that it tends to perpetuate. That premise is the idea that if there is an inequity in our society, or if there is any unfulfilled need among our citizens, it automatically falls upon the federal government to step in and balance the inequities and meet every need. That was not the intent of our founders who studied the history of tyranny and foresaw the future in which the power of the federal government was limited and personal liberties were expanded. This bill is another example of legislation that would reverse those roles. Personal liberties would be limited and the power of the government would be expanded.
As we watch this bill and the House version swim their way through the legislative process, watch closely for the shadows that lurk beneath the surface.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment