An Inconvenient Debt

In September of 2005, former head of the General Accounting Office (GAO), David Walker, embarked on a “Fiscal Wake Up” tour of the United States to educate and alert people to the current fiscal state of our economy. The tour consisted of town-hall style forums where Walker, along with members of the Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation, met with citizens across the country to explain the inherent problems regarding the amount of spending our Federal Government engages in. The biggest problems being the commitments to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which, according to Walker and many others, will begin to dramatically increase once the Baby Boomer generation begins to retire in massive numbers on or around 2019. This will lead to expenditures at the Federal level that, over the years, will exceed $55 to $60 trillion dollars. This number dwarfs our current trillion-dollar deficits and makes our current debt of $11 trillion dollars seem like pocket change by comparison.

On July 1st, congresswoman Betty McCollum (of Congressional District 4 in Minnesota), held a town hall meeting to discuss the current call for health care reform, embodied in President Barack Obama’s initiatives. While many citizens spoke up at the event, few grasped the perils of government involvement in the health care sector.

Many supported the “Public Option” in Obama’s health care proposal; some spoke of the need for a Single-Payer system, much like the one Canada engages in. These options may at first seem attractive but they ignore the disastrous results awaiting the United States.

When considering the trillions of dollars in debt that await us in 10 years, is it sensible to create an additional Federal entitlement for our country? If our future financial commitments are this great, would not any sensible person consider any additional spending to be ludicrous? Dangerous? The Congressional Budget Office estimates Obama’s health care plan to exceed $1 trillion over 10 years, a number which would only cover 16 of the supposed 47 million uninsured in America. This massive amount of debt is not something we can tax our way out of, we cannot borrow our way out of, and we sure can’t keep printing money to cover it, although the behavior of the U.S. Treasury implies contentment with the latter as of late.

Those who stand in opposition to Obama’s health care reform proposals must not allow those who support it to characterize them as being content with the status quo, as McCollum did. Opposing Obama’s proposals does not equate with or imply support of the status quo. The health care system in the U.S. needs fixing, that much can be agreed upon. Rather, any opposition should stress free market solutions such as Health-Status Insurance, health savings accounts, and the like. Furthermore, this opposition would be wise to illuminate the history of health care in the U.S. and highlight how and why costs have risen to their current level.

The impending crisis Walker calls attention to is not the product of one political party or another. Both Republicans and Democrats have made few attempts to tackle this issue, while each have engaged their own spending priorities leaving future generations in oceans of debt. There are 545 people in Washington responsible for this calamity, and the public’s trust in each and every one of them has worn thin. Should people trust those in Washington with something as critical as their health care? As I stated last Wednesday, “Congresswoman McCollum I don’t trust you. I don’t trust Republicans. I don’t trust Democrats. I don’t trust Liberals. I don’t trust Conservatives. There are 2 people in this world I trust with my health care, my doctor and myself. Stay the hell out of that relationship”.





Those interested in Free Market solutions to health care are encouraged to visit The Cato Institute's website dedicated to this topic: http://healthcare.cato.org/

For a solid history of health care in the United States be sure to read Jeff Hagen's position paper for MNLG, posted below.