More On American Health Care Reform

Christopher Hayes is mad and he doesn't care who knows it!

Mr. Hayes, a writer for The Nation, is upset about how some dare health care reform will add to the deficit. He asserts in a recent piece that basically, health care reform is "deficit-neutral" that is, it will take from one side of the accounting ledger (expenditures) and the other (revenues) and presto! Even stevens!

Says Hayes:

See, a government, like any organization, institution, or firm has expenditures and revenues. Miraculously, it can increase its expenditures, without increasing its deficit, if it also increases its revenues. This is called "deficit neutral" and it's what the current health care bill, in all its incarnations, is.

So. What is the source of those revenues? Taxes. The government doesn't produce goods and services. The money it has belongs to the people. Revenues in this instance is tax payer money. Still, it doesn't totally debunk Hayes because in principal, I suppose, the government can still, in theory, be deficit-neutral. Nonetheless, you still need to be conscious of what revenues really are. If you increase expenditures (health care costs) and revenues to offset it, and if the source of revenues are taxes, doesn't it follow taxes will increase too? In the end, it all comes down to the same thing: It's funded by taxpayers.

But what happens when costs of health care actually spiral out of control? What are the offsetting measures? More taxes? 

I don't know enough about this stuff to write emphatically in defense of it. I just go with my experiences and hunches. Deficit-neutral is a type of jargon no different than what we see in the corporate world; my personal favorite has always been EBITDA.

Fiscally, it will cost Americans no matter how it's presented. Why not just admit this and hammer on the "this is the right thing to do" angle? At least they'll come off as "honest" and "compassionate." Although, as most Canadians already know, public health (or any bureaucratic office for that matter) is many things and compassionate isn't one of them.

Here's a more detailed explanation of how misleading the math is.

***

As for the notion that the government wants to present a "competitive" option to private insurance...well let's just say that's a bemusing thought.

Take it over President Coolidge:

When government comes unduly under the influence of business, the tendency is to develop an administration that closes the door of opportunity; becomes narrow and selfish in its outlook; and results in an oligarchy. When government enters the field of business with its great resources, it has a tendency to extravagance and inefficiency, but, having, the power to crush all competition, likewise closes the door of opportunity and results in monopoly.