Once Again, Morality Trumps Reality
by John Reit (June 21, 2006)

I visited San Francisco about 2 years ago. I spent about four days there at the end of which I truly knew the meaning of the phrase, "Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there." Literally, I could not walk 10 feet on a downtown street without being accosted by a homeless person. I couldn't help but think, "Is this what liberals call taking care of their fellow man?" For a city where liberal socialist ideology is not only en vogue but also a matter of public policy (a city that would rather be European than American), this would certainly be the testing ground for the effectiveness of unfettered liberal social programs. Let's just say I wasn't impressed with this urban Utopia's ability to care for the less fortunate.

How can things get worse? Today, Mayor Gavin Newsom unveiled the city's very own universal health care plan.

News like this should make me happy… in theory. After all, I read about the catastrophic socialized health care systems in Europe. I understand how unsustainable they are and the economic quagmire into which those nations are sinking. Likewise, I'm fully aware that our own Medicare program is a dead policy walking. And once the rest of America sees the consequences of San Francisco's system, any attempt to nationalize health care will surely fail, right? So, if they want to follow in these doomed footsteps in an attempt to act as an example to the rest of the nation, why should I care?

I care because this country has a terrible track record of ignoring precedent in favor of morality. Despite obvious facts that contradict theoretical results or supposed benefits of government programs, we still look to Uncle Sam to solve our problems. How else can one explain the fact that we not only enact but hold on to destructive socialist policies in the face of the horrific social and economic consequences of 80 years of Soviet Russia, 50 years of communist Cuba, decades of failed socialist policies in Europe, Africa, and Asia - not to mention our own welfare and Affirmative Action programs? Even with all this available evidence, Mayor Newsom didn't appear to have any reservation in moving forward with his city's plan.

"Rather than lamenting about the fact that we live in a country with 45.8 million Americans that don't have health insurance... San Francisco is doing something about it," Newsom said. "San Francisco is moving forward to fulfill its moral obligation." Once again, we see that liberal philosophy is not about real results. It's about morality.

Though I don't agree with him politically, I'm sure Mayor Newsom is a smart man. I'm sure he has heard or read about the results of similar programs elsewhere. Surely he knows why Canada is now allowing its citizens to abandon its own universal system and purchase private health care. So why would a man who has the responsibility of the economy and social health of an entire city?

It's the same justification as it is with all liberal programs - it's better to be righteous than to be right.

Newsom estimated that the plan would cost $200 million. He stressed that it is not meant to take the place of private health insurance, but rather provide a way to treat its 82,000 citizens that are without insurance. Taxpayers, businesses that don't already provide insurance, and the participants themselves, will subsidize the cost of the plan. Those at or below the federal poverty line will pay $3 a month, while those making $19,600 to $40,000 a year will pay an average of $35 a month. What's amusing is that even if San Francisco's mayor doesn't know any better, I certainly do.

Upon implementation, I can all but guarantee the cost of the program - like most socialized medicine systems that have ever been enacted - will double. Don't believe me? Ask Britain what the difference was between estimation and implementation of its National Health Service. Ask George W. Bush the same question about his Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. And San Francisco can pretty much count on the costs going up significantly every year - probably to the point that its businesses begin a mass exodus and the city takes on crippling budget deficits.

The reason for this is the same with all government programs. Once activated, the number of "needy" people grows drastically. Those who would never be thought of as disadvantaged suddenly find a way to fall under that category. One need look no further than Social Security - a safety net that was supposed to help the elderly who were unable to work. Thirty years later, "unable to work" branched out beyond the elderly and became a much bigger classification - injured, handicapped, etc. These are the real consequences of the liberals' theoretical world.

The same will inevitably happen with San Francisco's health system. Certainly those who currently pay for their own private insurance will promptly drop their plans. Even if they can easily afford it, what would be the incentive to keep it? Eventually, the system will be so broken they'll receive the same type of service. So why pay $300 a month when they can pay $35 a month?

Let's forget for a moment that the 45.8 million uninsured about whom Mayor Newsom is so concerned are rarely the same 45.8 million people from year to year. Why is it that the first solution to a "crisis" is always government? Why should Newsom not look into deregulation? Tax credits for those who have Health Savings Accounts? Instead of continuing to try to concoct the right mixture of laws and taxes, why not at least experiment with minimizing that which makes the cost of health care artificially expensive? I doubt this even entered his mind. And the citizens of San Francisco will soon feel the effects of his tunnel vision.

The consequences of federal intervention into the private sector have become almost formulaic. Once government takes over, certain results are inevitable - poorer quality, higher costs, less efficiency, more abuse of the system, and bankruptcy. There's no evidence to suggest that San Francisco will have any better luck with universal health care than Canada, Europe, Cuba, Russia, or even other parts of America who have tried it (just Google TennCare). Yet, here they go all in an effort to prove that the moral life is more important than the real one.

I'll be watching closely. Hopefully, so will the rest of America.