Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - [Homestead] "Tipping Point" - Big government

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: bobf <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Homestead] "Tipping Point" - Big government
  • Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:39:53 -0800 (PST)

Yesterday, Leslie was talking about a 'tipping point'. This article is in
today's WSJ. If not interested, just delete. Take from it what you will

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beware of the Big-Government Tipping Point

Socialized health care fundamentally changes the relationship between
citizens and state.


By PETER WEHNER and PAUL RYAN

For most of our nation's history, our approach to economics has favored
enterprise, self-reliance and the free market. While the American economy has
never been entirely laissez-faire, we have historically cared more about
equality of opportunity than equality of results. And while Americans have
embraced elements of the New Deal, the Great Society and progressive
taxation, we have traditionally viewed welfare as a way to help those in dire
need, not as a way of life for the middle class. We have grasped, perhaps
more than any other nation, that there is a long-run cost to dependency on
the state, including an aversion to risk that eventually enervates the
entrepreneurial spirit necessary for innovation and prosperity.

This outlook, once assumed, is now under attack due to a recent series of
political and economic events.

The first is the unprecedented intervention by the federal government, in the
form of a $700 billion relief package intended for our financial institutions
after the credit crisis last September. This was followed by extending
billions of dollars of federal assistance to America's auto makers in order
to prevent their imminent bankruptcy -- the first emergency bailout that went
to companies outside the financial sector. We understand why the federal
government did this, and even supported legislation that, while hardly
perfect, prevented an economic meltdown.

Nonetheless, the consequences of this undertaking are enormous. Not only has
the size of the expenditures been staggering -- there is talk of another
stimulus package worth an estimated $825 billion -- but we are witnessing a
fundamental transformation of government's relationship with the polity and
the economy.

The last several months are a foreshadowing of a new era of government
activism, rather than an unfortunate but necessary (and anomalous) emergency
action. We will soon shift from a market-based economy to a political one in
which the government picks winners and losers and extends its reach and power
in unprecedented ways.


This shift is exemplified by the desire of President-elect Barack Obama and
the Democratic Congress to push us toward government-run health care.

For all his talk of allowing consumers to select their own health-care
coverage, Mr. Obama's proposal, as he laid it out in his campaign, will
provide strong financial incentives for employers and individuals to sign up
with a new, Medicare-style government plan for working-age people and their
families. This plan will almost certainly use a price-control system similar
to the one in place for Medicare, allowing it to charge artificially low
premiums by paying fees well below private rates. These low premiums will
serve as a magnet for enrollment and will devastate the private companies
trying to compete in the health-insurance market. The result will be the
nationalization of the health-care sector, which today accounts for 16% of
U.S. gross domestic product.

Nationalizing health care will be profoundly detrimental to the quality of
American medicine. In the name of cost control, the government would make
private investment in medical innovation far riskier, and thus delay the
development of potentially lifesaving treatments.

It will also put America on a glide path toward European-style socialism. We
need only look to Great Britain and elsewhere to see the effects of
socialized health care on the broader economy. Once a large number of
citizens get their health care from the state, it dramatically alters their
attachment to government. Every time a tax cut is proposed, the guardians of
the new medical-welfare state will argue that tax cuts would come at the
expense of health care -- an argument that would resonate with middle-class
families entirely dependent on the government for access to doctors and
hospitals.

Of course, this health-care plan is occurring against our particular fiscal
backdrop: Without major reform, our federal entitlement programs will soon
double the size of government. The result will be a crushing burden of debt
and taxes.

In short, we may be approaching a tipping point for democratic capitalism.

While the scope of the challenge should not be underestimated, those of us
worried about this fundamental reorientation of politics and economics have
several things working in our favor. Among them is that a public accustomed
to iTunes, Facebook, Google, eBay, Amazon and WebMD is not clamoring for
centralized, bureaucratic government. The strong American instinct for
individual initiative and entrepreneurship remains intact.

In addition, confidence in government -- from Congress to those responsible
for oversight of the financial system -- is quite low.

Our sense is that at the moment, the public is not thinking in terms of "big
government" or "small government." Instead, Americans want efficient
government -- one that is modern, responsive and adaptive. People want
government to act as a fair referee, providing guardrails that allow
individuals to rise without intrusively dictating individual decisions.

If conservatives hope to win converts to our cause, we need to understand
this new moment and put forward an agenda that reforms key institutions in a
way that advances individual freedom, without creating an unacceptable level
of insecurity.

This is no easy task, and it must begin with providing a compelling
alternative to what contemporary liberalism and Mr. Obama are about to offer.
This especially includes health care, where we must start by recalling that
our current health-insurance system was designed to meet the needs of a 20th
century economy and World War II-era employment laws. It is hopelessly
outdated, yet the Obama plan would make the system even more sclerotic.

The core of our message needs to be a commitment to creating a health-care
plan that meets the demands of the modern economy. We need to convince
concerned citizens that we can help the uninsured find coverage in the
private sector and use market incentives to contain costs. The result will be
a system that makes it possible for everyone to afford health insurance,
including those with pre-existing conditions.


Tax credits, high-risk pools, insurance choice and regulatory reform can form
the basis of a transformation from today's enormously costly and inefficient
third-party system into one driven by ownership, choice and competition. And
at the nucleus of this redesigned system will be the patient-doctor
relationship.

If we hope to succeed in making our case, it will require a concerted
education campaign that relies on hard data and facts, rigorous and
accessible public arguments, and persuasive public advocates.

This is quite a tall order. But if we do not succeed in resisting greater
state involvement in the economy -- and health care is meant to be the
beachhead of this effort -- we will move from a limited welfare state into a
full-blown one. This will reshape, in deep and enduring ways, our nation's
historic sensibilities. It will lead here, as it has elsewhere, to passivity
and dependence on the state. Such habits, once acquired, are hard to shake.

Between now and the end of this decade may be one of those rare moments in
which among other things will turn decisively one way or the other. The
stakes could hardly be higher for our way of life.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page