1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Doomsday101, Aug 27, 2009.

  1. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,843 Messages
    1,484 Likes Received
    Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care
    by Newt Gingrich


    Facta, non verba.

    For those of you who have forgotten your Latin, it means "deeds, not words."

    There's been a lot of overheated rhetoric about health care reform, but this saying is one that all Americans should return to when considering plans for a government-dominated health system.
    In other words, we should judge government, not by its words, but by its deeds.

    With this simple principle in mind, what follows are three examples why government can't-- and shouldn't-- run our health care system (at least not any health care system you or I would want to be dependent on).


    Reason No. 1: Government Can't Be Trusted With a Credit Card
    Every family knows about making a budget and living within its means. Government, to put it bluntly, does not.

    What if your husband had come home last Friday night and announced that he had racked up almost 30 percent more debt on the family credit card - including the mortgage and car loans - than he had told you about just a month ago?

    Would you trust him to go out and start spending money to remodel the kitchen? And do you think he could get a loan to do it?

    But that's exactly what the Obama Administration did with their weekend news dump. They announced late Friday that the amount of money they don't have but are nonetheless planning on spending over the next ten years isn't the astonishing $7 trillion they estimated in May but is instead an astounding $9 trillion.

    Add this to the fact that, after the administration sold its health care reform proposal on the grounds that it will reduce costs to the Treasury, the independent Congressional Budget Office determined that the House plan will actually cost an astounding $1 trillion-$1.5 trillion in the next ten years, which will be added directly to the federal debt. The director of the CBO testified before Congress last month that "n the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

    Which do you have more faith in, the government's happy talk of "bending the cost curve" or its record of out-of-control spending?

    Deeds, not words.

    Reason No. 2: Government Can't Even Give Away Money Effectively
    As the inimitable Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, "Compared to the infinite complexity of healthcare and health-insurance, cash-for-clunkers is kindergarten stuff. You trade in your old car for a new one that gets (slightly) better mileage and the government gives you money - between $3,500 and $4,500. How hard is that?"

    Too hard for government bureaucrats, it turns out.

    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has boasted that the cash-for-clunkers program provided "a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work.''

    But look at the deeds, not the words.

    Last week, cash-for-clunkers ended in a bureaucratic morass of red tape, failed promises and unanticipated costs.

    Air Traffic Controllers Manning the Cash-for-Clunkers Hotline
    Only a government bureaucracy could mess up a program designed to give away free money.

    The government wizards who set up cash-for-clunkers initially budgeted to sell 250,000 cars in three months.

    The program sold that many in four days.

    And because the central planners who think they can provide government "competition" to the private health insurance market failed to accurately estimate how many government workers it would take to administer cash-for-clunkers, they had to take employees from the FAA - air traffic controllers, no less - to help manage the demand.

    And what about the car dealerships the program was supposed to help in the first place? Even though the rebates were supposed to be paid within 10 days, only 7 percent of federal promises under cash-for-clunkers have been paid so far, leaving dealers with millions of dollars in unfunded government promises.

    More Than Bureaucratic Incompetence, Political Business as Usual
    But there's more to the cautionary tale of cash-for-clunkers than just bureaucratic incompetence.

    This is a case study in what happens when politicians get involved in the marketplace.

    Despite all the rhetoric of jump starting the auto industry, politicians' priorities are to give free goodies to their constituents. So as far as they're concerned, cash-for-clunkers has been a resounding success.

    Forget the fact that they're spending money they don't have, or that car dealerships are left holding millions of dollars in empty government promises. They're not concerned with the long-term, just the next election.

    So tell us again why should we think bureaucrats and politicians will perform any better with our health care?

    Reason No. 3: Government Would Rather Pay Crooks Than Manage Efficiently
    There's been a lot of worrying about the inevitability of government rationing health care under the Democratic reform bills in Congress.

    Economists have known about this inevitability for a long time. Well, Americans can stop worrying. Government is rationing care already - and doing it in a particularly stupid way.

    Studies have shown that early use of home health care after hospitalization - allowing patients to go home and be visited by a nurse to manage their care - saves Medicare billions of dollars.

    So here is a case where an innovative government program actually saves the government money. Home health care is both more compassionate and more efficient. It reduces the likelihood a patient will be readmitted to a hospital by allowing her to heal in a more familiar setting.

    Home Health Care Works, So Naturally Medicare Bureaucrats Cut Its Funding
    So naturally bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut $34 billion from this compassionate, efficient program last week.

    And if the House health care reform bill becomes law, an additional $56.8 billion will be cut from the program - an amount equal to almost the entire federal budget for home health care services in 2007.

    What makes rationing care to the homebound all the more immoral is the fact that there is a much bigger pot of savings available to Washington if it only had the political will to look.

    Instead of Seeking Savings from the Homebound, Why Not the Crooks?
    As a new book by the Center for Health Transformation's Jim Frogue details, criminals rip off the taxpayers to the tune of $80 billion to $120 billion each year in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    We're not talking about inadvertent bill errors but outright fraud. Government health programs are currently paying men maternity benefits, giving taxpayer dollars to pizza parlors that are supposed to be HIV transfusion centers, and even paying dead patients federal health care benefits.

    If ever there was a reason not to turn our entire health care system over to government it is this: Government can't run the health care programs it already has. It would rather ration compassionate, effective programs than do the hard work of rooting out and punishing the crooks who are stealing our taxpayer dollars.

    Facts are Stubborn Things
    Americans have already heard a lot of rhetoric about health care reform, and we can expect to hear a lot more.

    But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. And the facts of government's track record in managing our money and delivering on its promises speak louder than any televised presidential speech or stage-managed town hall ever could.

    So as the summer winds down and the debate rages on, let this be our mantra:

    Facta, non verba.

    Make a bumper sticker out of it.

    Put it on a tee-shirt and wear it to a town hall.

    And when someone asked you what it means, tell them that before we hand over more of our lives to government, we should consider how they've treated us so far.

    Your friend,

    Newt Gingrich
  2. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,711 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    There are a lot more than three reasons it would be a failure, but this list is a good start.
  3. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,009 Messages
    12 Likes Received
    Reason #3 just sounds like a partisan jab, but he's right on the money with #1 and #2. I got a good chuckle out of #2.
  4. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Right after Newts guide to family values with a huge section on being married.
  5. Rackat

    Rackat Active Member

    2,134 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The funny thing is, we're not talking about family values and marriage. We're talking about government. While Newt may not be a good source for family values or marriage, he definately knows government.
  6. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Newt knows Political Gain.
  7. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,711 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    and Wheat knows how to distract and deflect.
  8. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I think Newt is full of crap. The problem with Newt is that because of the way he handled himself. Even if he had a good idea. Who's going to take him seriously?

    If he's so on the level. Then he should run for office again and try to do some "good". *****ing and moaning from the sidelines is what we're doing right here. Why do you need him too?
  9. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,711 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    From comment to you stemmed from your attempt to discredit the messenger rather than the message. That is all.
  10. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,843 Messages
    1,484 Likes Received
    Newt Marriage problems are not going to cost me 1 red cent
  11. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,843 Messages
    1,484 Likes Received
    Attack his points he is making or can you?
  12. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Ok, if you don't think you do the same thing with the political hacks you don't like. Then I've got some beach front land in Colorado to sell you.

    cheers
  13. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I think starting with the idea that this will put private insurance out of business is where his ideas fall apart.

    His points are gov't can't do anything right when it comes to spending. I agree the Gov't overall is a mess. I also think that the private insurers are the biggest crooks out there and right now see the C.O.I.D. using their position to deny a lot of premature babies potentially life saying medication because of tightening the AAP restrictions on risk factors. I don't see Newt commenting on what to do about this.

    So....... I think a public Option isn't the worst idea....and probably not the best.

    I'm also not hearing any other suggestions that make any sense.
  14. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,711 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    I was typing way to fast. Talk about some broken English on my part.

    Anyway you usually address the topic and not who wrote it, thus my comment. It seemed out of character for you, so I said something about. No big thing.
  15. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    There are some people who I personally feel have the least amount of cred. I think Newt is one of them. That's my own personal opinion. Maybe his message is just. But being in a healthcare related field, and seeing the number of families who jump through hoops only to get denied because of legal language....is criminal.

    I think there also needs to be a middle of the road for this whole healthcare reform. But it does need to be reformed because if its not. Its going to react like the other dereg'd industries did. Gov't didn't cause big business to fail by controlling it. It failed because nobody monitored them properly.
  16. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,711 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    The politicians running the federal government are the biggest crooks out there in my opinion. They are the ones in charge of the insurance companies everyone love to demonize. They are the ones that will not allow competition in the insurance industry. Then thier solution to fix the industry they screwed up is more government. At some point people have to wake up.
  17. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,843 Messages
    1,484 Likes Received
    I did not see in this write up where he said it would put private insurance out of business.

    I did see where he has shown and many of us know this, the inadequacy of Government ran programs with poor oversight and abuse of Government ran programs.

    I would love for both sides to get together and talk about how we can lower the cost but creating yet another Government program is not going to lower the cost which is the so called problem.
  18. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,711 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    Are you in favor of tort reform and allowing companies to sell across state lines?
  19. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Well, you gave yourself a reason to vote 3rd party.

    Meanwhile, Term limits on the hill could help out a lot also. I think 12 years to be a Senator, and 12 years to be a Rep is more than enough time. If you're good at it. You can get 24 years out of it.

    I think the insurance companies are the top of the mountain when it comes to being the crooks. That's my opinion.
  20. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I think again, there is middle ground.

    Just like protecting doctors from lawsuits. I don't know if a cap number is the answer. Or using averages, or what. But obviously, the way things are haven't been working well.

Share This Page