GOPideas... ideas done right

A previous post discussed the need to refocus the policy framework from an income focus (tax breaks and tax expenditures) toward an asset focus (personal ownership and control of wealth). Although the writing on this site is policy-focused, the recent health care debate provides a political impetus to revisit the notion of an "ownership society" that GWB discussed --- and the fundamental reason why personal ownership is a superior model to government ownership. Specifically, as this Politico story alludes to, seniors are getting increasingly nervous about the provisions in the plan that allow government managers to restrict/rearrange coverage. Obama stated:

"Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits .... This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don't need it."

Just who, exactly, are the "folks who don't need it" --- and who is deciding which folks need it and which folks do not?  More importantly for seniors, does anyone really believe that the government will stop paying these "folks who don't need it" --- but they will continue to provide these services to seniors? This is the policy minutiae the administration doesn't expect people to pick up on. Would you show up to work once the government decided that your salary would be confiscated because you "didn't need it?" It is equally likely that the $165 billion of services provided to seniors that will be cut will not lead to a cut in care.

To be intellectually honest, seniors and those who talk on their behalf complain about the cost or complexity of the current system: prescription coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, supplemental insurance, nursing home care and complex web of services, regulations and providers. However, the bottom line is that they have access to any drug that they want (even if it is not significantly subsidized, though most are), they have their bills taken care of without having to argue with an insurance adjuster and no one ever tells them that they can't have a treatment because of cost. Flaws aside, that's still a great deal for seniors.

Thus, despite the Democrats' attempts to portray the older Americans showing up at townhalls as imbecilic wackos manipulated by Republican lobbyists, they are there for a purpose. They have access to and payment of nearly unlimited health care in the most advanced nation on earth --- and they hear that changing this system will "help" them. Actually, the current system works great for them --- and they know it.

However, any plausible fiscal analysis of the future of Medicare and Social Security leads to the inescapable conclusion that rationing is coming --- the fiscal path of both programs is unsustainable. Taxpayers can no longer provide unlimited health care to everyone over 65 forever. This is intuitive --- and why Republicans should focus on empowering individuals to develop health care-focused assets: because when it's your money, the only rationing that concerns you in a free market is self-rationing. Such proposals would provide the juxtaposition that is necessary: a government provided system controlled by politicians or a personal system controlled by individuals.

Maybe you trust Obama, Henry Waxman, Ted Kennedy, Charlie Rangel and Max Baucus (the writers of the health care bills). But by allowing government control of health care under a plan they write, you're not only trusting the current President and Congressional leaders, you are trusting all future leaders --- and they can change their mind at any time regarding rationing, access or payment --- for any "public option," including Medicare and Medicaid. Obama is willing to bet your health on the future judgments of politicians. Are you?