Throwing good money after bad habits...

President Obama addressed his desire to reform the American health care system in his radio and internet address today. The text can be found here.
According to Obama, "Fixing what’s wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve – it’s a necessity we cannot postpone any longer.”
He went on to say in his most mellifluous, yet ominous tone, "If we do nothing, everyone’s health care will be put in jeopardy.”
Okay, Chicken Little. You're making the sky fall.
This sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric he used to ram the mammoth "stimulus" plan through Congress. So far there has been little evidence that, to paraphrase his words, we've turned the economy from the cliff. Initial jobless claims fell slightly this week, yet unemployment has risen to 9.4%, its highest level in twenty-six years. The immediate future looks grim, as economists expect unemployment to continue to increase through next year.
The reasons for his haste are obvious. Obama is still riding high on public approval and enjoying his honeymoon with the electorate.
His goals seem laudable: access to quality health care for all Americans.
"I’m talking about the families I’ve met whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy or forcing them to go without the check-ups or prescriptions they need. Business owners who fear they’ll be forced to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers."
There is, however, considerable danger in his ambitions. Let's take, for example, the business owners whom Obama mentioned. The Wall Street Journal reports initial legislation has been circulating in Washington that "would require employers to cover their employees or pay a penalty." Conveniently, Obama's plan makes the choice for them.
Obama went on to say, “My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues.”
Given the nearly $800 billion "stimulus" spending plan which he heartily championed and the vigor with which he promoted "fiscal discipline" when he required his cabinet to trim their budgets by $100 million, I am not reassured by his promise of "rigorous spending reductions." He is correct that his plan is historic, however, in that he is proposing an entitlement program epic in size, complexity and cost. Costs to the taxpayer could explode to more than $1.5 trillion over the next several years. And it will be the taxpayer who "covers the costs," in Obama's words, through "appropriate additional revenues."
One of the additional revenues of which he spoke may be a value added tax, or VAT as it is known in Europe. The value added tax is essentially a national sales tax which will affect everybody from the poorest to the richest. A value added tax of 10% to as much as 25% has been suggested in Washington recently as a method to pay for Obama's health care plan. Other options being discussed by lawmakers are increasing taxes on alcohol or taxing sugary beverages. Additionally, lawmakers are considering taxing employee health benefits.
The most dangerous of Obama's ambitions as he pushes his health care reform agenda may be the hidden costs Americans will pay with their freedom.
President Obama addressed the cost of his health care reform promising, "we can’t welcome is reform that just invests more money in the status quo – reform that throws good money after bad habits."
Bad habits?
He continued, "We must attack the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs." One of the biggest contributors to rising health care costs is the increase in obesity. In 2007 the CDC reported that more than 34% of Americans were considered obese. Health care costs connected to obesity approximated $117 billion in 2000, according to the CDC.
With an administration reaching farther into the private sector than ever before, controlling executive pay and firing CEOs, how much further can their reach go? Can it extend into the personal lives of private citizens?
In the interest of keeping health care costs low, the door may be open to regulation of "unhealthy behavior." Government mandated exercise and physical activity programs, government designed diets? Perhaps not. Every behavior which could negatively impact health care costs, however, could and likely would be regulated, subversively, through taxation. Consider the high taxes on cigarettes. Given the legislature's recent proposal of a tax on sugary beverages, a general "behavior tax" may not be out of the realm of possibility.
Perhaps President Obama's health care reform will be funded with a "fat" tax. After all, obesity contributes to many diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, stroke, osteoarthritis, and a host of other ailments which burden the current health care system. What better way to deter weight gain than to levy prohibitive excise taxes on Snickers bars, pizza and ice cream? What better way to regulate the populace than to make things people like harder to get? And as an added bonus, less heft would contribute to better fuel efficiency. Lose weight, save the planet!
So how, then, can government intrude into your private life and personal decision-making, such as what to eat for dessert or whether to exercise or sit on the couch all day? What if you want to ride your motorcycle when it's raining? What if you want to swim less than an hour after eating?
At the same time, abortion has been ruled as a protected right, citing the right to privacy.
President Obama's intended health care reform is less like reforming health care and more like reforming government's role in people's personal lives. Much like some people start going to church, and some profess a deeply profound, personal relationship with Jesus.
It's not about health care reform. It's about power and control. It's always about power and control.
Obama claimed his intent was to "protect consumer choice." In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed, "a new public health insurance plan would benefit consumers by providing more competition in the market." How competitive can a private company be when its competition can print its own money?
Further, how competitive can a private company be when its competition makes the rules? The federal government makes the policy, sets the rules, and regulates the industry. What is to stop lawmakers from making laws which only they can follow? Or making policy that benefits them and increases their hold over their "customers"? Or, if you're still under the illusion it's still a free market and it's still a fair playing field that means what stops government from increasing their market share, if not service or price?
The ones who make the rules always win, and the ones who are bound by those rules always lose.
That includes everyone President Obama intends to "help." Just imagine standing in line at the post office the next time you break your leg and have to go to the emergency room. Don't get too attached to that leg, you won't have it much longer.
Perhaps eating a Snickers bar is dangerous. I'll take my chances, and I'll make the choice.