It's Always Better to be Righteous than to be Right - Massachusetts' New Health Care Plan
by John Reit (April 5, 2006)

The inevitable national socialization of health insurance just took another big step forward. And while I have a hard time believing in psychic ability or omniscience, before this article ends, I will be able to give you a fairly detailed picture of Massachusetts', as well as America's, future. It won't be through any special paranormal abilities, mind you. I will simply be forecasting based on history.

Right now on the desk of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, awaiting his signature, is a bill that was overwhelmingly passed by its senate, which will make it mandatory for all citizens of the state to have health care. If they can't afford insurance, it will be provided free by the state. If they can afford insurance but refuse to purchase it, they will be financially penalized. And, in typical "let's strangle the Golden Goose" liberal philosophy, any company that employs more than 10 workers and doesn't provide health insurance will be assessed a $295 fee per employee per year. I'm sure they are already working on special amendments to eek even more out of Wal-Mart.

First, a word for "liberal in conservative's clothing" Mitt - sign that bill and kiss your '08 Republican Presidential candidate hopes buh-bye!

Of course, this recent round of socialist victory is touted to be a "model for the rest of the country." Ready for my impressive display of fortune telling? OK. Three things will happen as a result:

1. The amount of "eligible" recipients will skyrocket over the next few years. Right now, the state estimates that 500,000 of its citizens are without health coverage - due to either unemployment or low income. The pending law states that only these people will be able to receive "free" insurance (I know. For the sake of being brief, I used the word, "free" even though it will be the rest of Massachusetts that will actually be paying for it. I apologize to all rational thinkers.). But like every entitlement program, the number of people who are considered eligible for coverage increases quickly. When you provide a "free" service, the amount of hands outstretched to receive their something for nothing inevitably grows in large increments. And the power hungry politicians of Massachusetts, in their endless quest for more votes, will be glad to expand the program to be more inclusive.

When Social Security was first enacted, it was intended to help older Americans who were no longer working or could no longer work. Thirty years later, the entitlement was expanded to include more people who claimed - for reasons other than being elderly - could not work. Thus, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program was created. And, true to form, this piece of socialism experienced a sharp increase in those who considered themselves "disabled." I know you've all seen the John Stossell reports on 20/20 that show people who claim to have crippling back pain working on their homes, or playing on their boats - all the time collecting SSI instead of working.

Time and time again, we have learned that when you offer an opportunity for a population to gain a benefit without paying for it (even under strict criteria), people will become very creative with reasons as to why they now fall under the category of "needy." Right now, thousands of Massachusettsans (?) are concocting plans to prove that they cannot actually afford health care. And dozens of politicians are ready and willing to listen.

2. The cost of this program will nearly, if not, double shortly after it goes into effect. And eventually, it will become financially unsustainable. Of course, right now I can't tell you that number because the cost of the program has not been disclosed. But let's assume that at the moment, it is estimated at a conservative cost of $10 billion. I guarantee that number will reach close to $20 billion by the time the law goes into effect.

Again, these predictions are not based on any other special abilities other than my power to read. We've seen time and again that programs like this, whether on the national or state level, cost way more than originally thought. When Great Britain enacted its National Health System (NHS) on July 5, 1948, the first-year costs were 52 million pounds higher than originally thought as Britons flooded the system.

Then there was TennCare - another state-run health program in Tennessee that was also touted as a "model for the rest of the country." This program was passed in 1994 just as Hillary Clinton was unsuccessful in her attempts to bring the entire nation closer to a communist state with her universal health care initiative. As the newly elected Republican House and Senate successfully kept the bill from ever getting to a vote, Democrats in Tennessee were eager to prove what a wonderful thing socialized medicine is. The southern state would be the testing ground.

Like all socialist programs, TennCare's costs quickly soared and for the same ol' reasons - too many people looking for free services and not enough resources to handle them all efficiently. Within ten years, the program was in financial ruin. The Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen all but shut it down when the state legislature refused to increase taxes or reduce benefits in order to sustain it. However, the state did win a $550 million lawsuit against Medicaid/Medicare, which promises to keep TennCare alive for at least another year. So, it's not only Tennessee's problem, you and I are now paying to keep this financial Titanic afloat.

And of course, there's George W. Bush's wonderful Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. In 2003, when it was first proposed, the program was estimated to cost $300 billion. When it took effect in January 2006, that estimate was updated to $796 billion.

3. Universal health care will become reality for the rest of America. Despite the failures of the past, and what is sure to be a failure in Massachusetts, we simply refuse to learn our lessons. Furthermore, there is a large portion of human society that believes the act of helping people is more important than the results.

For more than three quarters of a century, we have been subject to failed liberal policies for which politicians have convinced us we are not paying. We've also seen entire communist as well as watered-down socialist systems fail on many levels. Yet the "we're smarter and more enlightened than you" members of America have convinced us that, somehow, we can make it work - that there is some formulaic mixture of money and regulation that will let everyone receive everything they need without cost to them. And furthermore, we can still prosper as a society under these conditions. The result of this mentality has been generations raised with the notion that it is the role of government to save us from ourselves and provide that which we deem as our "right," such as health care. In monetary terms, the measurable result is $400 billion federal deficits and an $8 trillion national debt.

Forget that we cannot carry this debt without eventual bankruptcy and the devaluation of the dollar. Those more enlightened than I continue to bang the gong of self-righteousness, purporting that is the act of charity that is most important, regardless of the consequences. True, that charity is forced. Even Massachusetts is telling its citizens they must purchase health care, or else… but it's for their own good.

Failure after failure and we have not learned our lesson. Massachusetts' new health care program will fail, as well. And we will not learn that lesson either.