Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a chasing after wind.

 

George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 

Today, advocates of health care reform are celebrating. While I can understand their elation, I would like to state my concerns. In essence, a terrible precedent has now scarred our Constitution—we have forsaken checks and balances. Let me state from the outset that I am disgusted by the actions of the Tea Party that “called Black legislators niggers” and communists. I am offended that the Tea Party attacked the homosexuality of Barney Frank. Let me state emphatically I abhor “spitting on anybody or denigrating minorities!” I hope that the opposition to the Health Care Act condemns the excesses of some members of the Tea Party. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose the bill and legitimate avenues to redress the situation. Our democracy stands for respect for the opposition, and not street riots. We want legitimate discourse and debate, not racial slurs, wild rants of communism, belittling sexual preferences, and ethnic backgrounds. 

 

In our desire to legitimately make concrete health care reforms, we now will forever endure “unintended consequences because we have forsaken precedents.” Could we not have dealt with people having special needs through an agency devoted to their unique problems rather than overhauling 16% of the economy? When TARP passed, we did not envision that no toxic assets would be procured or that TARP 13 separate programs? When congress revoked Glass Steagall, did they expect a revolutionary change in the conduct of the financial industry? When LBJ passed Medicare did it expect that evemta;;u ot sp; 

 

Major Anxiety

 

America has forsaken principles that have carried us through over 225 years of democracy. We are the oldest democracy in the world, and should be proud of our heritage. My foremost worry is that forever we have destroyed checks and balances. Historically, our legislators respected minority views. In fact, our Bill of Rights pledged to protect the right of minorities over the will of the majority. We have now forsaken that sacred trust. In 1937, despite having an overwhelming majority legislator defeated Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had alienated liberals and the downtrodden by ruling unconstitutional many New Deal legislative actions. Nevertheless, collectively the American people and its legislators understood that we needed to keep a balance of powers to preserve our democracy. 

 

In essence, we have made a farce out of our bi-cameral legislative system. Specifically, for the House of Representatives to claim that they passed the Senate Bill in its entirety when significant amendments were added is at best a slight of hand. The President has promised pro-life advocates that he will through Executive Order pledge to not use one cent of federal money to fund abortions. His promises contravene the specific language of the Senate version of the health care bill. The Democratic Party for good or evil has turned their back on women who wanted pro-choice. I am dismayed that not one liberal legislator said he could not support the Health Care reform because it violated his constituency’s beliefs and Supreme Court rulings.

 

We have all seen that “what comes around goes around.” When the Republicans get in office, and someday they will, they will pass their own legislative agenda. Their acts might be even more offensive to Democrats and Independents than the current Health Care Reform. In essence, is this the legacy that we wish to pass on to future generations? 

 

None of us can anticipate what future legislators will choose to pass. It might range from elimination of the teaching of evolution to using nuclear bombs to attack “so-called enemies.” America can no longer be constrained by the notion that “we are a nation of laws.” We have replaced that credo with “we are a nation of men.”

 

Secondary Concern

 

We have denigrated capitalism. Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, said that “selfish people in pursuit of profits will do more good than any charitable institution.” He advocated that the “invisible hand” will procure the best goods at the best price. While I understand that we need to question laissez faire economics, we should also not malign seeking of profits. How many of us are willing to work for no material advantage? Castigating profits contravenes our historical emphasis on self-interest to promote the general good. While I have uncertainties about the ethics of insurance companies, I also dislike the charge that these institutions are merely “selfish entrepreneurships.” If insurance is such a great business, why do not more firms start health care insurance operations? Nobody provided me with compelling data that the profits on insurance companies on their equity or sales make outrageous profits. 

 

Is it right to uniformly decrease doctors’ fees for Medicare by 21% to help Medicaid? In fact, to expect physicians to blindly accept decreases without protest is unrealistic. I predict that the proposed cuts will be rescinded dramatically in the near future. Thus, we not only have either unilaterally singled out doctors for wage and price controls or we will abort this so-called saving. Stated differently, the financial benefits of the Health Care Reform bill will never materialize. We will not bend the “cost curve.”

 

In essence, we have traded the benefits for 32 million people (this number is just an estimate and not necessarily 100% accurate) to the detriment of even more people under Medicare. Can we expect quality physicians to treat seniors as “loss leaders?” No business, especially physicians, can sustain a 21% reduction of the top line. The cost of running a typical doctors’ office is about 55% of revenues. Reducing top line by 21% will make it non economic in most cases. Can we expect henceforth that the brightest minds will want to become physicians when lawyers and investment bankers make significantly more money? 

 

While I understand the legitimate concerns about the inability of people such as myself who suffers from leukemia not getting insurance, I also understand that no business can just take on a money losing proposition. Would we ask any provider of goods and services to lose money in order to satisfy the needs of their customers? Stated differently, the government could have stepped in for people such as myself and provided relief just as they do for people who live in areas that are vulnerable to hurricanes. We need not reform the whole system to fix certain problems.

 

The poor economic performance of England, India, and many other countries under even Democratic Socialism attests to the failures of State Control. History has taught us repeatedly that Command Economies fail.

 

Let me conclude with the comments of my father, who understood the shortfalls of Communism (Command Economies). Dad wrote his Ph.D thesis on the split of the Bolshevik and Menshevik Parties from 1898-1903. My father said “Communism taught us that it can make a few rich people poor, it cannot make many poor people rich (or even middle class).