Ten specious reasons behind ObamaCare

posted at 2:38 pm on March 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Bruce Kesler works methodically to refute the supporting arguments for government-run health care in an extensive post at Maggie’s Farm.  Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress will bet that the American voter has moved significantly since 1993-4, when an attempt at outright nationalization put Democrats out of power in Congress for more than a decade.  They’re hedging their bets with some misleading arguments, and Bruce shoots them down one by one:

George Bernard Shaw warned “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”  The major overhaul of American health care pursued by President Obama and his supporters is based on many false premises and is excessive and likely to do more harm than good.  Tuning up and improvements already always dynamically occurs.  Instead, ObamaCare is aimed at dramatically changing one-sixth of the US economy in ways that are untested or tested and found wanting, primarily involving huge increases in government direction of health care.

The details of ObamaCare are largely being left to Congress, the same body that stuffs  the federal budget with earmarks, waste, and other programs that are not requested.  ObamaCare is premised on claims for drastic changes in health care and major increases in government programs being necessary.  Those claims are largely specious.

Below, the top ten specious premises for ObamaCare are discussed:

1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries
2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford
3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings
4. Increased Evidence-Based Medicine And Health Information Technology Will Significantly Improve Care and Reduce Costs
5. Present Administrative Costs And Insurer Profits Are Too High
6. US Consumer Dissatisfaction Requires Drastic Health Care Changes
7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy
8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are Necessary
9. More Preventive Care Will Better Serve Consumers And Save Costs

10. Health Care Consumers Are Being Served By Drastic Health Care Changes

I’ll give you a taste of one of Bruce’s detailed rebuttals:

Typical of misleading statistics, a US advocate of government-run health care touts a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), comprised of the 30 most developed economies, favoring universal coverage as exists in most of the other OECD countries.  The OECD report is actually titled a “working paper” by the three researchers.  The encyclopedia defines a “working paper” as “a document created as a basis for discussion rather than as an authoritative text.”  This OECD “working paper’s” statistics are misleading.

More accurately, a January 2009 analysis of the data gathered from the OECD points at life expectancy as the single best measure of outcomes.  Excluding deaths by injury, to focus on health related outcome, “the US does the best of all the OECD countries” having the longest life expectancy.

Even the OECD “working paper” has to admit that the US’ higher infant mortality rate is misleading: “Even if there were uniform reporting standards of infant mortality across countries, a second limitation to using it as an indicator for health outcomes is the potential effect of certain interventions on the likelihood of a live birth.  It is conceivable that additional health care provided in the second or third trimester causes a pregnancy that would almost assuredly be a stillborn to become a pregnancy with an improved chance of a live birth but also an above-average likelihood of dying within the first year.  These interventions increase health care expenditures and result in the birth of more low-weight- and very low-weight babies, with significantly greater health problems.”  The “working paper” does not address the moral issues or that most such babies go on to productive lives: “43% of children had survived without any impairment.  Minor impairment was diagnosed in 39% and major impairment in 18% of assessed children.”

This OECD analysis also corrects per capita health spending to use price parity (comparative purchasing power) instead of oscillating currency exchange rates.  The decline of the dollar compared to the Euro in the past decade did not increase the US’ comparative costs per person by 55%.  In fact, other OECD countries’ health spending is understated by 56%, and “the US is no longer the highest [spending] country.  France and Norway exceed the US in real health care consumption.”

I chose this passage for a reason: cost rationing.  Americans spend more on health care than other nations because they demand (and receive) more care.  The infant-mortality issue gives us a big clue in that regard.  In every state-run system, costs get controlled by care rationing.  One need go no further than the VA or Medicare to see this, and the Obama administration wants to limit Medicare even further based on means-testing, generally not a bad principle but certainly the opposite of what they promise with Obamacare.

The question Americans need to ask themselves — and demand from the ObamaCare advocates — is what care they’re willing to surrender to rationing.  Research and development?  Preemie care?  Transplants?  Single-payer systems force consumers to forego care in order to save costs, and any Canadian or Brit can confirm that.

Don’t miss the rest of Bruce’s work.

Blowback

You must be logged in to post a comment.