The Alexander City Outlook

Health care system needs change

Health care reform is a good thing.

It’s difficult for me to accept this truth. But, regardless of my libertarian tendencies, the fact remains our health care system needs significant change.

Without a doubt, our government desperately needs to produce a plan that controls expenses, provides more affordable options, and increases access. I cannot argue with politicians who want cheaper insurance for more people.

Believe it or not, I would even consider supporting a public option if I thought the government could run such a program. My fear, however, is it cannot.

President Obama himself brought this fear to light at one of his town hall meetings in August. He argued that a public option would decrease costs for everyone by providing stiff competition for private insurance companies. The idea is the government, by providing an affordable option, would drive down costs by forcing private insurers to offer cheaper plans in order to stay competitive.

At first glance Obama’s reasoning seems sound. After all, companies competing for market share have historically reduced prices in order to maintain their positions in the marketplace.

Unfortunately, his reasoning is not the problem.

The real issue concerns the government’s ability to manage such a huge undertaking. The president unwittingly raised this problem at an August 12 meeting when he compared his public insurance plan with the post office. He stated that FedEx and UPS were doing very well in spite of government competition. To emphasize his point he said, “It’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

He made this claim in order to deflect criticism that his plan would run private insurance companies out of business. However, his statement only increased criticism by highlighting the fear that a public insurance plan would be a disaster due to government red tape and bureaucracy. If the post office is in terrible shape, why should we believe government health insurance would be managed better?

Another recent example of government inadequacy is the “Cash for Clunkers” program. Initially hailed as a success for increasing car sales in July and August, we are now learning that many car dealers are having a hard time getting reimbursed for the rebates associated with the program.

In one media report a dealer claimed that out of 200 cars sold at his dealership, only 27 deals had been reimbursed. That’s not a good ratio.

Other dealers claim the program seems to be extremely disorganized and poorly planned, with no apparent rhyme or reason.

These reports do not instill a whole lot of confidence in the government’s ability to run a health care program, which would be infinitely larger and much more complex than a program designed to sell more cars.

If “Cash for Clunkers” is a harbinger of things to come regarding health care, then I think we are in trouble. The last thing we need is a “Cash for Health Care” program that makes ordinary citizens “go postal” because the government can’t deliver what it promises.

Roger Steele is general manager and advertising director of The Outlook.