Universal Coverage Will Only Lead to a Single Payer System
Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal? We posed this question to NewMajority's contributors.
I believe that universal coverage, while in theory a noble concept, in reality will never work for an extended period of time and thus the GOP should absolutely not endorse it under any circumstances. Why? Here are a few, though by no means all, of the reasons I would oppose such an option were I a representative.
1) No government program ever comes in on budget and the potential for a fiscal runaway train in such a mammoth entitlement is daunting. All one need do is look at Medicare, Medicaid and recently MIMA's initial projections to see this.
2) The nation is already running record deficits. This is not the time to embrace government activism whose price tag cannot be realistically projected (see above).
3) This is not a winning political issue as there is no overwhelming popular demand for such a program. The majority of Americans do, in fact, have health insurance, and the majority of them are satisfied with their care, although they would like to see reform of costs. As seniors too are both a growing voting bloc as well as consistent voters, they see this, rightfully, as a raid of Medicare to pay for others.
4) As a businessman, common sense tells me that I cannot compete with any entity (in this case the federal government) that both unilaterally decides (regulates) what products we both must offer and then not only need not worry about making a profit, but which can run in effect a bankrupt institution ad infinitum. This is the equivalent of "dumping" by undercutting competitors' prices, even at a loss, to take market share -- but without the hit to earnings that some companies are willing to take. The Democrats see this as an option to "keep insurance companies honest." I see it as a first step to what Obama et. al. have repeatedly clamored for over the years (new rhetoric notwithstanding). A first step towards an ultimate take-over of the entire healthcare system by the "single payer" entity... Uncle Sam.
5) This goes to 4. This will undoubtedly quell competition and also reduce the level/quality of service. I know of no business that is not driven by the profit motive and also provides superior service/products. It is the antithesis of the capitalist "invisible hand." Profits drive innovation and competition.
6) The verdict is still out with other nations' universal healthcare models. This is a long term play.
7) Finally, it is not who we are as a nation. We are not a welfare state. And what better way for the GOP to reclaim its more libertarian side than to oppose such a plan.
No one denies that healthcare costs are spiraling (for a small firm like mine, for example, our co-payments are now $50.00). But the American people do not trust, nor should they trust, the federal government to provide the solution. And remember, once a program is enacted of this magnitude, it can never, ever, be repealed. "Just say no" in this case I think is both good for the party and, most important, good for the country.
To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.