Why Obama’s Plan is Not Where We Want to Go

Tuesday, an article titled, “Why Obama’s Health Plan is Better” in the Wall Street Journal praised the candidate’s plan and accused the opponent, John McCain, of causing more harm than good. When one takes a close look at Senator Obama’s plans for the future of health care, it is easy to see the pitfalls and dangers that await American taxpayers.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain’s policies include efforts to help the little guy who suffers from expensive health insurance or no insurance at all. While the authors of the WSJ article praise Obama’s policy they fail to mention the how and at what cost his plans will be executed. They fail to discuss the huge expansion of government such a health plan would cause. Senator Obama’s website explains his health care plan to include a “National Health Insurance Exchange”. This exchange will, “act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness.” While this campaign guarantees some version of fairness it does so at the expense of the American taxpayer. This is a perfect example of how the government controls the private sector using the excuse of helping the people. What part about acting as a “watchdog” over the private insurance market is fair? The part that oversteps its constitutional boundaries?

This campaign also claims that part of the problem with the health care system today is the extensive paperwork and costs that are overwhelming for American citizens. Mercer sites that in 2007, “Total U.S. health benefit cost rose by 6.1 percent in 2007, the same pace as last year, to an average of US $7,983 per employee,” which is twice the rate of inflation. Figure 1 from the Congressional Budget Office demonstrates the excess cost growth in government spending on health care. Figure 2 from the CBO shows how much of this spending is on entitlements alone and the percent of the GDP that it constitutes. Somehow, Senator Obama believes that this health care plan will reduce this problem despite the additional government involvement. One thing we all know about the bureaucracy is that they thrive on paperwork. When this campaign promises that, “Obama and Biden will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function,” one must keep in mind that “expand eligibility” will require a expansion of government and further burdens on the American people. Not to mention the costs for taxpayers to fund this program when many may do not want it.

Figure 1

Figure 2

The authors claim several ways in which the Obama health care plan is different and innovative. The truth, however, is that it just expands the programs we have now and with more government interference comes more taxes and less freedom for health care providers and taxpayers. Michael Tanner from the Cato Institute explains that, “Obama’s plan, with its heavy reliance on government, leads to the same problems that bedevil universal healthcare systems all over the world: limited patient choices and rationed care. McCain’s proposal is much more consumer centered and taps into the best aspects of the free market.” The regulations placed on private companies with Obama’s plan will not encourage them to provide better health care for their employees and in fact it will do the opposite. There is no doubt that the current health care system is costly. The National Coalition on Health Care reported that in 2007 the government spent $2.3 trillion on health care alone at a 15.2 percent of the GDP. No one claims the current system is perfect, but nationalized health care is not the answer.