The Bottom Line: So-called 'benefits' of the health care bill are authoritative and fiscally irresponsible

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled Thursday the House bill for health reform. This bill is another major step toward the Obama administration's greatest domestic policy promise. The primary goals of congressional leaders and the White House consist of expanding insurance coverage, reducing costs for those who are insured and improving quality. However, if reform of the sort described in this bill is made into law, the current problems of the health care industry will remain unaddressed, newer problems will be created and the benefits will be negligible compared to these vast costs.

In order to achieve said goals, this bill calls for the creation of a government-run insurance option, subsidies for individuals to buy insurance, mandates for businesses to provide insurance to their employees, individual mandates to get coverage and more funding for Medicaid and SCHIP. The total estimated increase in spending comes to about $1.1 trillion. To pay for this, the bill includes new taxes for higher-income individuals, penalties for businesses who fail to provide full coverage and individuals who fail to attain coverage, and cuts in Medicare.

Most of the new spending is aimed at achieving the goal of expanded coverage -but is this the biggest problem? Many of our leaders in Congress have claimed that "46 million Americans do not have health insurance," citing a survey conducted by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, of those 46 million, 18 million are making more than $50,000 a year and probably can afford health insurance, but, for whatever reason, opt not to. According to a 2007 New York Times article, millions are eligible for public programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP, but are not enrolled. Also, many of the uninsured are temporarily uninsured, but will get insured in the near future. Only about 8 million people who cannot afford insurance and are not eligible for public assistance will go uninsured for two years or more, as found by a 2002 study conducted by BlueCross BlueShield.

A more pressing concern in the health care industry in America is the exorbitant and rising costs. Health care expenditures in the United States are among the highest in the world and will continue to grow. The reason for this surge in health costs is the fact that consumers of health services are insulated from costs. Most Americans today are covered by their employer due to a tax exemption enacted during WWII. This shields people from the direct costs of their health services and they end up not shopping around for the best bang for their buck. Thus, they end up racking up huge expenses. This bill does nothing to address this problem, and, if it passes, we can only expect costs to continue to grow.

Then there is the public option - hailed as a tool to bolster competition, improve choice, and control costs. However, economists have long noted that when something can be provided by the market (the private sector), the government cannot do a better job. For example, the United States Postal Service cannot keep pace with the likes of UPS or FedEx, and public schools consistently display lower performance results compared to most private schools.

What about the risks we would take in creating one? It is possible that through unfair advantages a government agency - with access to tax dollars and the ability to pay less than the market price of procedures - this could easily turn the public option into a monopoly.

Doing so would compound all the drawbacks of a monopoly with those of a government bureaucracy. Innovation would stagnate, costs would rise exponentially and the government would have a central and authoritative role in our medical decisions.

There are many problems with the current health care industry and reform is needed, however this plan contains very to curb these afflictions and a high potential to exacerbate the situation. The problems of enacting reform of this sort would reach further than just the health care industry.

The new burdens on businesses could stifle recovery and the new spending programs could end up costing far more than projected. The taxes already planned to pay for this would do nothing to aid and are inappropriate for a weakened economy. I encourage all reasonable citizens to write their representatives in Congress so this catastrophe can be avoided. And if our elected officials do not heed the call, I would strongly consider replacing them come 2010.