Inevitable Decline?
By Mona Charen
PatriotPost.us
Throughout the past year of debate on health care reform, the conservative
fear and the liberal hope were identical -- that passage of a huge new
entitlement program would prove irreversible. "No one now dares touch Social
Security or Medicare" crow the Democrats, and it will be the same with Obamacare.
Once the hammock has been strung, they reason, a lazy and comfortable electorate
will bestir itself only to defend its place at the trough (forgive a mixed
metaphor). At election time, a "kept" electorate will obediently choose the
party of entitlements.
Conservatives have imagined the same result, though with bitter apprehension
rather than fond anticipation. Further haunting conservative imaginations have
been two concomitant fears: 1) that a nation with nationalized health care will
become resistant to all arguments for smaller government and 2) that health
entitlements will so raid the Treasury that a global military posture will
become unsustainable.
As has been noted in this space before, the fate of Catastrophic Health
Insurance in the late 1980s proves that entitlements do not always achieve
immortality. Sixteen months after passage, the bill was repealed. Furious senior
citizens were outraged at the premiums, which ranged from $58 per year for those
earning $25,000 or less, to $800 per year for those in the highest income
brackets.
Cynics might say that the fate of the Catastrophic law only reinforces the
case that people like giveaways. Ask them to chip in for a benefit like
long-term care and they'll rock the car of Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan
Rostenkowski, forcing him to run for cover literally and figuratively. Maybe.
But another way to look at it is that many older people had already taken the
step of purchasing private long-term care insurance and were now being hit
twice. Nor were the costs of the program clearly spelled out at the time of
passage, leaving the nasty surprise for later.
Obamacare's costs, too, have been misrepresented by the Democrats. Only by
stripping the $208 billion "doc fix" from the legislation could they claim that
the bill would not increase the deficit. But the doc fix will happen, and health
spending, even taking the rest of the bill's ridiculously rosy assumptions as
true, would exceed $1.1 trillion. By the Cato Institute's reckoning, the actual
10-year cost will exceed $3 trillion.
Some of these costs will be borne immediately. Couples who earn more than
$250,000 will pay an additional Medicare tax and a 3.8 tax on investment income;
patrons of tanning salons will pay a 10 percent sales tax; makers of medical
devices like defibrillators and insulin pumps will pay a 2.3 percent new tax;
and large employers like Caterpillar and John Deere will have to pay taxes on
federal subsidies they receive to provide retiree benefits.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, medical device manufacturer Medtronic
has announced that it may have to fire 1,000 employees, Caterpillar estimates
that the new law will cost it up to $100 million, and Verizon has warned
employees to expect unwelcome changes in health coverage.
The health bill was passed (barely) despite popular opposition but cannot
succeed without eventual public approval. The initial returns are not
encouraging for the dependency crowd.
And then there is this cautionary note: Even in a country that embraced
socialism with open arms, disillusion eventually set in. Post-war Great Britain
chose by majority vote to socialize medicine, and Labour governments followed up
by swallowing the "commanding heights" of the economy -- transportation, mining,
communications, and more. Yet by 1979, the nation was sufficiently beaten down
that it turned to a full-throated capitalist for salvation.
When Margaret Thatcher took office in 1979, Britain was sclerotic and ailing.
Sir William Armstrong, head of the civil service, saw his duty as the "orderly
management of decline." Repeatedly victim to debilitating strikes by
dockworkers, miners, and others, the British economy sank to such depths that
the nation had to turn to the International Monetary Fund for relief.
With verve, conviction, and indomitability, Mrs. Thatcher set about
privatizing government-owned industries, selling public housing to its tenants,
cutting taxes (the highest marginal rate had been 98 percent), and reviving
Britain's international role. It's not too much to say that she transformed
Britain, dramatically improving living standards, productivity, and social
mobility. She did for Great Britain what Rudy Giuliani did for New York City.
As the Iron Lady said, "Decline is not inevitable." Not with the right
leadership.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Home | Articles | BLOG | Quotes | Photo Gallery | Favorites | Stupid Frogs Game | Store | Feedback | Search | Subscribe | About Us
|