This post is a simple statement to the article written on Bloomberg.com by Amity Shlaes. Indeed she tries to put blame on both sides for the supposed hypocrisy that exists in the current Obamacare debate. This is indeed an "Amity"-ville horror!
Moral relativism has become a caustic view in our society. If we have no principles, then what is the point to standing up for what we believe. There are two primary points in Amity's article: 1) Democrats are hypocrites because they included a section in the legislation that allows Medicare to pay for the voluntary end-of-life counseling, but they will not concede that sustaining it has drawn resources from the private sector because of the necessity to maintain the program; and 2) Republicans are hypocrites in "failing to acknowledge that the problem is in their own tolerance of the existence and expansion of government health programs."
Just as there are two views of differing hypocrisy on both sides, there are two problems with each conclusion of each statement. A simple question will present a simple answer. Which proposed hypocrisy is better for the American people. You know...the people who do not want nationalized healthcare.
Well, let's take a look. There is a statement in Amity's article that hits the nail on the head in the entire debate on nationalized healthcare. "Matters are different when it comes to publicly funded health-care programs such as Medicare. There are limits to public funds, so spending must be limited." Now, let's imagine expanding Medicare and Medicaid to everyone. You might ask yourself, "what are the limits to public funds?" The answer is your tax bracket. It does not take a genius to determine that the government will have as much money as it needs. Your money. At that point, where does the incentive lie to produce more. Has anyone heard of the Soviet model? That worked out well didn't it?
The other position that truly baffles my mind is the proposition that we Republicans are still hiding behind the banner of Reaganonmics. Well, point of fact, we are not hiding behind. We are pushing it forward. We are pushing it forward because it works. Amity surmises that "The reckoning of Reagonomics was always that it was possible to have both tax cuts and revenue growth. But it would be dangerous to bank on that equation when it comes to federal healthcare." On this point, I couldn't agree more. Under Reagan or any other quality conservative Republican, there would be NO FEDERAL HEALTHCARE! Why? Because it does not make sense.
My disagreement with the Amity article comes in the form where Republicans are essentially missing a forum to broaden the private sector by creating more choice. This is wrong. You cannot widen the private sector while increasing government control. It is a falacy. Only one can control. Amity quotes Newt Gingrich to say "You're asking us to trust the government." You cannot expand choice by adding the government healthcare plan. Remember, there is one competing factor that the private sector cannot challenge against the government. Profit. The government does not have to make a profit. This may seem overly simple, but by not having to make a profit to stay in business, it will create a competition vacuum. The private market will shrink with less choice.
Why would anyone trust the government to provide such a complex system for the entire country, when it cannot control the system for a much smaller group of people in Medicare and Medicaid.
The hypocrisy lies in the mindset of the jaded American people. I want freedom, as long as you can pay for it.
Just simple conservative statement on Obamacare.
-MTS
