ObamaCare: Get Ready for the Mother of All Epic Fails
President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have decided, despite the clear opposition of the American people, that the government can more efficiently and effectively run what has up to now been the greatest health care system in the world.
How can we expect this to work out? Reviewing the government’s performance in other endeavors provides useful and ultimately frightening guidance.
Let’s start by looking at our nation’s public schools. Efficiency is virtually non-existent. Productivity has been negative. Effectiveness has not improved, and has possibly worsened.
Almost two years ago, the Heritage Foundation published a tremendous study looking at education spending and test results during the past few decades. From 1970 to 2004, real spending per student more than doubled, while reading scores mostly stayed flat.
If the District of Columbia is any indication, Heritage’s graph understates how out of whack cost incurred versus value delivered has become. In a Washington Post op-ed also from 2008, the Cato Institute’s Andrew J. Coulson compiled spending from “all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education.” That included the operating budget, capital spending, federal funding, and city contributions.
He found that instead of spending an advertised $8,322 per student, the District was really incurring almost triple that amount, or about $24,600. That figure was and is more than likely far higher than all but the very priciest of private schools, one of which happens to be where Barack and Michelle Obama are sending their two daughters.
I don’t know how many other school districts are similarly understating their true costs, but even if the answer is “nobody else,” the nationwide per-student average is now over $11,000.
Ever-higher education spending and heavier federal involvement in it have not led to better educational quality. Yet the system’s defenders won’t let up. Despite 35-plus years of evidence that the only “positive” things that have occurred are salaries and benefits that are excessive in comparison to the private sector and bloated administrative overhead. Leading liberal columnist David Broder still thinks that spending more money we don’t have to prop up failing public schools “is a worthwhile federal investment.” Someone ought to ask Mr. Broder when enough is enough. I’m afraid his answer would be: “Never.”
Well, the current system hasn’t exactly been serving this country well.
If our health care system is so bad, why do Canadian elected officials come here to get treated?
That study is seriously flawed. Gives way to much weight to government funded access, with very little weight to limited/denied/deferred access.
Your reasoning is based on the fact that every five years a Canadian government official chooses treatment in the US. If this is your proof for the superiority of the American Health Care system your argument is standing on very weak legs.
Just how often do senior Canadian govt officials need major life saving surgery?
Given the number of senior Canadian officials in question, once every 5 years sounds pretty frequent to me.
It’s not just the occasional Canadian govt. poobah who comes here for treatment. If you live in a border city, you’ll see Canadians coming to the US, en masse, EVERY DAY to get medical treatment. Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit is a stone’s throw away from Windsor, ONT. My Windsor friends tell me their system is just fine for the occasional flu or sprained ankle. But when things get serious, they head for Detroit. They know they can get angioplasty or chemotherapy or even a freakin’ MRI right away. Then they go back home with the hospital bill and send it to their govt., which pays it.
Just remember one important fact the are double the number of US doctor’s per capita within 50 miles of the Canadian border than the rest of the US. Is this because the US citizens are sicker that far up north?
It’s simple Fred. If I had been fit enough to travel after a brain haemorrhage I would have flown from Britain to the States for treatment. Not because the overall standard of care is better but because I could afford the BEST treatment. In the USA the best in the world is available to the wealthy.
The question Americans have to ask at some point is “Are we prepared to pay a tax to make sure everyone gets pretty good care even if they have no savings?” A better healthcare bill form a better administration might make many people change their minds on that.
Life is not as generous to everyone as it had been to me. The British and Canadian systems are good in spite of the horror stories, screw ups are inevitable but overall most poeople are very well treated. Personally I don’t have a problem with anyone spending their own money to get the best avaialable rather than bog standard pretty good so I understand those Canadians. Don’t condemn their entire system on such a flimsy basis, after all what those people do in seking the best because they can afford it is just human nature.
Yes, but where are we to send our overflow? Socialization will destroy our health care system. When that happens, we will no longer be the best. Then what are we to do?
My answer to your question is that all people who have health insurance get lots of very good health care for very little cost to them and that includes all of us little people from the middle classes. The poorest are never turned away from emergency rooms when they need care. You have bought into all the collectivist claptrap. Most people don’t accumulate wealth because they are lucky. Most people, who have wealth, work hard to produce more that is valuable than they consume. Most people, who are economically challenged, do the opposite.
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend” – (you should know who). Socialist government usually destroys wealth by printing money that represents no wealth and renders any monetized real wealth less valuable. Most of us middling types keep most of our wealth in our wallets, so we get hurt. This is happening in your country right now. Most British table conversation revolves around how to get better health care, how to correct the continuing failure of the system to provide adequate care, and how to pay for the whole damned mess. All the expert ministers in the world will never get your system working well, but you have to keep trusting in them because you are stuck with it now. Maybe you should be asking why England’s health care system doesn’t provide good health care for anyone except those expert ministers? And maybe you should spend less time lecturing Americans about the great moral decisions we need to make before our downtrodden folk get tread upon.
1) American’s without savings already get health care.
2) The idea that the govt can improve the adminstration of anything is so ludicrous that only a liberal could possibly believe it.
3) The inefficiencies that exist in the health care system are their because of the existing govt intervention.
We have the best health care in the world right now. Perfect..nope!
Why do so MANY people come here from other counties to receive treatment? Why dont Americans go to other countries for treatment?
And more gov IS NOT the answer to making it better. Gov has a VERY very bad history or making things worse in almost every area it gets too involved in.
Interesting. The US has the best health care system in the world, but according to liberals, it isn’t serving us well.
BC – what a tool. Just wait until a “Complete Lives” panel decides the value of your life according to its ‘social utility’. har de har har. You are a good little selfless socialist citizen, aren’t you?
So, BC, making everything worse and cost everyone more of their money is an improvement?
With the election of Obama the most epic failure has already taken place.
The United States of America gave up the right to call itself a great nation.
Excellent essay.
Now do one about the Post Office.
When going to the Doctor becomes like a trip to the post office…
And any state drivers license or motor vehicle department.
That’s not universally applicable. I’ve been to license bureaus in Indianapolis, IN, and Carmel, IN, that were extremely quick and efficient.
Too much LOCAL control and STATE control, I’m afraid, and Indiana seems to be a relatively well-managed state. Hopefully Barack & the Dems will keep state and local governments away from health care/health insurance; I do believe that’s their plan. Get too many good mayors and good governors involved and you’re likely to end up with some semblance of good health care delivery.
Carmel’s DMV, well that’s a ritzy ‘burb, so an efficient DMV isn’t unusual. But Indy City? I’m impressed.
(wink, from a Hoosier expat.)
I have my doubts that the recently passed health insurance legislation will be repealed, except in parts that are symbolic and meant to appease just enough of the currently upset. Health insurance, stimulus, and the like are secondary to the principal point which is to spend large sums of money. At some point, in the not distant future, the guns versus butter debate that has never ended will heat up again in a very large way. The calculus which from Reagan until the collapse of the Soviet Union favored guns over butter, and a more assertive US foreign policy, broadly speaking, is likely to reverse – particularly if domestic entitlement programs are politically too difficult to cut, much less reverse, in the absence of a credible external threat. So without regard to Utopian dreams of entitlement programs writ large, a principal goal of the current administration will be achieved regardless of whether Obama is a one or two term President.
Mullen agrees . . .
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/25/joint-chiefs-chair-says-debt-is-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/
I was alking to a doctor friend last night,and he was telling me that he is already cutting way back on accepting Medicare patients. He can’t afford it. And we are just getting stared!
If Obama’s goal was to make Americans healthier, then it would be worth trillions to save trillions. If his goal is to control the insurance industries, break corporations, and limit medicine, then he would assuredly be more successful.
It would work better if we all just tried to take care of our own families and left other people’s problems to other people. The left is controlling the dialog. Until we change that, we are doomed to eventual government control of every facet of our lives. The problem with socialism is that eventually you either run out of other people’s money to spend, or you make everyone’s money completely worthless. In either case, we all end up in bread lines. That was partially lifted from a famous line attributed to Margaret Thatcher.
Great Idea.. let’s have a smaller government but have 40 million americans uninsured.. this is genuis
That’s okay, at least 30 milliom are illegal aliens. Ship them home, then we only have 10 million not insured. Five million are folks who are self-emploed and/or chose not to get insurance. The remaining five million are criminals and addicts, and don’t get insurance so we can’t track them down. Leaving us with everybody else covered. Okay, problem solved!
If those 40 million worked for a living and took care of themselves instead of trying to steal the wages of those who do, they’d have insurance. You are nothing but a slaver expecting me to work for you without compensation. Well, we serfs are getting fed up!
Oh, why stop at this fantasy number of ’40 million’ uninsured Americans? We’re rich, right (according to liberals), we should pay for insurance for the whole continent. What about the hemisphere? Crap, lets just pop for the planet. You should be embarrassed. America wasn’t founded on the idea of freebies, it was created for freedom and liberty. As long as you make one man pay for anothers ‘stuff’, you have neither.
Another lie from the master of lies.
If I told you that those 40 million were all Jews, would you change your mind?
I guess I would rather have 1/8 of the people running around without health insurance (that does not mean they don’t get health care) than 7/8 of the people unable to get basic necessities except in the black market (I’m not talking about race here so don’t start slobbering about racist Republican tormentors). Try to think ahead, Miriam, but don’t hurt yourself trying.
Amen! That sounds like a great idea. Insurance makes things more expensive anyway. Ain’t none of anybody else’s business whether or not I’m insured.
Myth Buster,
If you are attempting sarcasm, I would ask you what makes you believe that it should be my business to provide you with your health care?
Humorous cartoon with “ducks in a row” on Obama’s failed response to the oil spill at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/failure/
0bama’s alleged ‘health care reform’ is neither about health nor care nor reform. It’s a control mechanism. And a tool of destruction.
It is definitely about control and not about reform. The health care bill will add a huge number of high-paying federal jobs. It will also increase costs and increase the deficit. As more and more people are unable to keep their insurance, they will realize that President Obama lied about the consequences of this bill or what is more likely didn’t really understand the consequences.
#8 miriam rove states:
“Great Idea.. let’s have a smaller government but have 40 million americans uninsured.. this is genuis”.
Yeah genius, let’s give up our liberty and turn over the best health care system in the world to the moron’s running the Gulf oil disaster or how about the same nitwits that run the Post Office.
This way we can solve the problem of, INSURING not getting, health care for illegal aliens. Meanwhile we will increase the cost on the workng and middle class people who do not get insurance for their families through their employer. Screw you.
They did not even look at tort reform just for starters. Obamacare is a dealbreaker. It is worth fighting against and losing is not an option.
#4. Odysseus – Don’t worry, Obamacare will never see the light of day. If he is in office past January ’13 the country will collapse.
Heh. Implosion? Well, yes, that certainly would rewrite the script.
you know, miriam, life ain’t fair. so if you wanna spend on that particular problem, go ahead. include me out. see, there, that’s as easy a distinction between your liberal thought and my conservative thought as can be. ‘an ye harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’. i’ll pick my charity, and you pick yours. see ya bye.
For Miraim and all his/her liberal friends, please list all the major acomplishments Obama has made since entering office. Here, I’ll help you get started:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ooo! Ooo! I know!
1. Getting into double-digits for 18 holes.
2. Throwin’ epic parties.
3. Bowing and scraping to our enemies.
4. Raising divisiveness to an art form.
5. Hiring know-nothings and firing know-somethings.
To TriGeek
1. Returned focus on the real enemies in a big way.
2. Got health care reform passed despite all sorts of right wing numbnuts saying it wouldn’t.
3. The economy, having been run into the ground by Bush and the GOP, is on the mend.
4. Has begun restoring the US image abroad after having it trashed by Bush.
5. Responsible grown-ups who think are now back in charge.
As usual, BC’s connections to reality is imaginary at best.
1) Never lost focus on our primary enemies, at least not till Obama took office.
2) Destroyed the best health care system in the world. Real progress their dipstick.
3) A mild recession has been turned into the worst economic downturn since the great depression, and this so called recovery is non-existant.
4) If you think there is anyone who thinks better of the US now, compared to 2 years ago, your delusional. (But then we already knew that.)
5) If you can think of a single person in this adminstration who is either acting responsibly, or adult, much less in charge, please name them.
Yeah, BC’s living in his own little JonesTown, where the kool-aid’s always free.
“5. Responsible grown-ups who think are now back in charge.”
This is a reach, BC. You ran out of things you thought he has accomplished before you got to #5 so you threw this in. The problem is the conclusions that these grown-ups reached before they got to Washington. Follow these communists clear to hell, but leave me out of it!
There’s kind of a Catch 22 here. For the Feds to have been “ready” for the oil gusher, (the fact that they were unready being used in the argument here,) they would have to have spent many million or a few billion dollars purchasing, building, or buying the oil skimmers, pumpers, burners, etc. Is it good news or bad news that we don’t have a manned or mothballed fleet of oil disaster vessels ready to hit the water?
Wrong again and on the wrong subject anyway, Dwight. After the Exxon Valdez spill, over 20 years ago, the feds set up a commission and spent over a hundred million dollars on planning for preparedness for possible oil disasters in the future. Nothing was ever done to prepare the government after that. But I suspect the results would have turned out like government run health care will anyway.