This is a great piece on what we can expect if the government-run healthcare passes. The author is a friend and said i could post the entire article here.
Why Government Healthcare is a Bad Idea
By Gautham Nagesh
Things are slow in DC right now with Congress out of session, so I’m hoping to work on some more enterprise-type reporting. I’m fairly proud of my piece from Friday, it’s an updateon the (lack of) progress on GSA’s Networx contract:
Agencies likely to miss deadline to transition to Networx The General Services Administration is likely to miss the deadline to complete the transition to its new telecommunications contract, threatening to cost the government millions of dollars in missed savings, according to GSA officials and industry executives familiar with the contract.
Networx is the government’s largest telecommunications program to date, a 10-year pact worth up to $68 billion. It offers more advanced telecom technology and services than its predecessor, the expiring FTS 2001 contract. [link]
This is the type of procurement story that never gets any attention, but really portrays the inefficiency of government at its worst:
At her confirmation hearingin June, Martha Johnson, President Obama’s choice to lead GSA, told lawmakers she believed the transition to Networx was too slow and delays were costing taxpayers millions of dollars every month. Johnson is awaiting Senate confirmation.
The government currently is missing out on about $18 million a month in savings by not transitioning to Networx, Karl Krumbholz, director of network services programs at GSA’s information technology service, told Nextgov on Friday.
$18 million a month may not sound like a lot, especially in light of the billions our government has been tossing around for things like bank bailouts and stimulus projects. But that’s $18 million that’s being wasted every month because agencies have not been able to complete the transition to a new telecommunications contract.
Examples like this are precisely why I find it hard to believe that government involvement will somehow make healthcare cheaper. Whether or not you support a public option, I think it’s either impossibly naive or intellectually dishonest to argue that increasing the government’s role in healthcare will result in lower costs or greater efficiency. Really? Because they’re doing such a great job delivering the mail and counting the population? How about those stimulus funds, which were intended to kick-start the economy, but have mostly ended up in the hands of a few big corporations?
For more evidence of how healthcare reform may not be all it’s cracked up to be, let’s take a look at Massachusetts, the one state lauded for passing bi-partisan healthcare reform, which the state did in 2006 with a Democratic legislature and a Republican governor in Mitt Romney. Last week, Christopher Hayes of The Nation pointed me towards a recent Rasmussen poll showing that only one in four likely voters in the state considers healthcare reform a success:
“Only 26 percent of likely voters in Massachusetts believe health care reform has been a success and just 21 percent believe reform has made health care more affordable, according to newly released poll results.”
Keep in mind this is one of the most liberal states in the country, exactly the kind of place that should be completely behind healthcare reform and 29% percent of the likely voters say their healthcare has gotten worse since the implementation of MassCare. Even among liberals, only 37% consider the program a success. 41% of independents call the effort a failure.
This is exactly the type of poll result that Republicans should be trumpeting because it’s very difficult for Democrats to explain why citizens in a liberal state who supported healthcare reform have seen a decrease in the quality of their care under the new system. According to the rhetoric coming from the Hill and the White House, the new reform bill is supposed to cover almost everyone while remaining deficit-neutral, with improvements in the quality of care and cuts to individual costs to boot. Health insurance for everyone with no discernible reduction in quality or access to service and no additional cost to the taxpayer? Awesome! Sign me up!
Of course, it’s becoming rapidly clear that like most of President Obama’s campaign promises, the reality is a long ways from the Hope Train. Chances are if a bill does get signed this year, it will not cover everyone, will not include meaningful reforms that will lower costs and will result in reduced access or quality of care for a significant percentage of Americans. Plus, it will probably be financed by a middle-class tax hike as well as some sort of additional tax burden for the highest-earners. Since, you know, wealthy people are evil and we’re not really interested in encouraging any sort of sustainable job creation or growth that might make people independent of the government.
I know most of the folks on my side of the argument are spending this recess canvassing, organizing and starting flash mobs outside of the various town halls that Obama uses to make it seem like he still cares what the public thinks. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but I’m not sure they are as politically motivated as the left is making them out to be. They strike me more as regular Americans concerned about losing access to their doctors. If some of them are indeed paid to cause a ruckus by conservative opponents of the legislation, I question whether that’s really the best way to help the cause.
Politically speaking, if Massachusetts is any indication, nothing could be better for the GOP’s prospects than the passage of a big, flawed and costly healthcare bill driven by Pelosi & Co. A few years from now when the glow has faded and Obama is raising money for his foundation, we’ll be left with a massive increase in the national debt and a healthcare system that looks worse to most Americans than before reform. Almost nothing would serve as a better reminder to the future generations of the dangers of big government.
