Words Do Count - As Obama Should Know

Senator Obama's web site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)speaks of his health care plan on several levels of complexity. The "At a Glance" section talks of "Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage For All", "Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System", and "Fight for New Initiatives". The next level of complexity describes. in vague terms, such items as guaranteed eligibility, comprehensive benefits, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles, subsidies, simplified paperwork, easy enrollment, portability and choice and quality and efficiency. It goes on to describe a "National Health Insurance Exchange," employer contributions, children's mandatory coverage, expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP, and flexibility for state plans. It proposes to lower costs by modernizing the US Health Care System, ensure that providers deliver "Quality" care, lower costs through investment in electronic health information technology systems, lower costs by increasing competition in the insurance and drug markets, and fight for initiatives which appears to be a mix of politically appealing verbage.

Skip to "Background Questions and Answers On Health Care Plan" and discover that all of this will cost "us" taxpayers a mere $50-65 billion a year when fully phased-in. The basis for this number is not made clear: is it conjecture? Is Obama proposing an adjective laden piecemeal patch to the current system?

Not long ago we were told that $70 billion dollars (if my recollection serves me correctly) would cover our costs for the war in Iraq. It didn't, it won't and neither will Obama's health care proposal cost what it says in print on his site. He should provide a realistic tabulation of costs versus savings.

Obama's site does not explore the impact of his proposal on the economy, especially on the small businesses which are the lifeblood of American industry. It does not explain the impact of globalization on the offshoring of employment which allows major companies to get out from under health care insurance costs (and their pension costs) and shift them to others. It does not explain the risks of tinkering with a $2 trillion plus economic sector which, if it implodes, will make the current housing recession look like childs' play (health care is a major employer) as well as destroying the function we now have in our dysfunctional health system. Obama offers a simplistic fix.

In my opinion, Clinton and Obama suffer from a common defect. Each believes that she/he knows precisely what is wrong and exactly how the American people want their health care system to deliver services. My analysis is that they are wrong on both counts and that it would be better to start by having national bipartisan hearings to find out what is wrong and what the people want in the way of a health care system. Enough with the patriarchal approach - let's really have a sensible program for improvement founded in reality and the compromises which the American people will accept.