Newt Gingrich offered up "Ten GOP Health Ideas for Obama" in the Wall Street Journal the other day. Let's see how his ideas stack up. Shall we?
The first question on my mind is, does Gingrich adhere to the Constitution, or does he present some sort of progressivism-lite?
Make insurance affordable. The current taxation of health insurance is arbitrary and unfair, giving lavish subsidies to some, like those who get Cadillac coverage from their employers, and almost no relief to people who have to buy their own. More equitable tax treatment would lower costs for individuals and families. Many health economists conclude that tax relief for health insurance should be a fixed-dollar amount, independent of the amount of insurance purchased. A step in the right direction would be to give Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount.
So right off the bat, Newt offers up another tax scheme. Great. The tax code is way too simple as it is.
I have a better idea ... Eliminate the evil income tax all together! People's incomes aren't a policy toy for our Washington Overlords. Quite frankly, they have no moral claim on a person's earnings in the first place!
Make health insurance portable. The first step toward genuine portability—and the best way of solving the problems of pre-existing conditions—is to change federal policy. Employers should be encouraged to provide employees with insurance that travels with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market. Also, individuals should have the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. When insurers compete for consumers, prices will fall and quality will improve.
This makes for great Bumper Sticker politics, but fails as any type of actual solution.
It's not up to Congress to tinker with legislation (and our incomes) to "immanentize the eschaton." As Thomas Jefferson famously said, bind them down "by the chains of the Constitution" instead!
Policies will become more portable in relation to the amount of federal laws repealed. Leaving Congress unchecked by the law of the land (the Constitution), only leads to further tinkering and yet more problems. Congress IS the problem, not the solution.
Meet the needs of the chronically ill. Most individuals with chronic diseases want to be in charge of their own care. The mother of an asthmatic child, for example, should have a device at home that measures the child's peak airflow and should be taught when to change his medication, rather than going to the doctor each time.
Having the ability to obtain and manage more health dollars in Health Savings Accounts is a start. A good model for self-management is the Cash and Counseling program for the homebound disabled under Medicaid.
Here we are again ... more Washington meddling with the people's incomes.
I've got a better idea Newt, how about getting the government out of people's paychecks?
Gasp!
But ... but ... that would take power away from Washington. We can't have that now, can we?
And a "good model for self-management" is a government program? Really? How stupid do you think Americans are?
Newt continues with more ideas for Congressional tinkering, then offers this:
Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. There is no question that Medicare is on an unsustainable course; the government has promised far more than it can deliver. But this problem will not be solved by cutting Medicare in order to create new unfunded liabilities for young people.
Where can I turn in my conservative membership card? I give up! Because if conservatives have learned to love the State, I want no part of them. Our Founding Fathers worst nightmare has come true.
How can anyone call themselves a conservative, with a straight-face, while endorsing Medicare? Sure, there would have to be a transition phase to get out of it, but any conservative worth his salt would speak the truth ... Medicare has got to go!
Inform consumers. Patients need to have clear, reliable data about cost and quality before they make decisions about their care. But finding such information is virtually impossible. Sources like Medicare claims data (stripped of patient information) can help consumers answer important questions about their care. Government data—paid for by the taxpayers—can answer these questions and should be made public.
Yeah Newt, that's what we need ... another government boondoggle. Because of course, the government is always the best source of information (and monkey's are gonna fly out of my butt).
What the people need, is to get the greedy, power-lusting hands of the legislature out of their pockets!
I'm done with the analysis. Gingrich's plan isn't worth reading any further, because it is fundamentally opposed to the Constitution and the limits it places on the power of the federal government.
We need freedom, not more progressive legislation. Barry Goldwater had it right. Newt Gingrich has is all wrong.
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can. - Barry Goldwater.
