OPINION & EDITORIAL
Balance market, government roles
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by David Lapidus:
Related Stories:
- GOP lacks spirit, fervency of past (March 29, 2007)
- Reagan: an awful president (February 8, 2002)
- GOP still has shot at salvation (May 9, 2007)
- Stop fearing socialized health care (September 28, 2007)
- Universal health care not just a dream (October 24, 2005)
by David Lapidus
Monday, January 21, 2008
In his 1981 First Inaugural Address, President Ronald Reagan argued “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” These famous political words highlight the frequent knee-jerk reactions members of both major U.S. political parties have concerning the role of government. Seeing this impulse in action, specifically on the issue of health care, reveals a simpler and more nuanced approach to the topic of domestic government intervention: More or less government can further empower or burden our lives.
You all know our health care system’s problems. Health care inflation is soaring. Health insurance is unaffordable for millions of Americans who are also not eligible for government coverage. With rising health care costs and more people entering government coverage programs, budgets are exploding with entitlement spending. The system does not adequately promote preventive medicine, contributing further to costs. Insurance companies compete by denying claims, not offering quality care. The good news: Those who get care receive access to the best quality health care in the world.
To fix this mess, the leading Republican and Democratic Party candidates for president offer many sensible fixes, but reveal an unfortunate partisan reality in our nation’s leadership. In order to solve a problem as immense as our health care system, presidential candidates should offer every worthy solution available. Instead, the Democrats mention primarily solutions requiring more government; the Republicans, less government.
What we do not see is as wide a mention of market solutions like health savings accounts, interstate insurance markets and tax deductions or credits for purchasing insurance individually.
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama mention a few market proposals here and there that Republicans do not, including allowing safe drug imports and a vague mention by Mr. Obama about wanting more insurance market competition, but these proposals are not the meat of their plans.
The leading Republicans’ plans have the opposite problem. Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mike Huckabee offer most of the above market solutions as their plans’ bases, but offer no government interventions beyond funding and grants for health information technology.
Additionally, the Republicans and Democrats offer to pay for these programs differently: Republicans through spending cuts and efficiency gains, Democrats through increasing taxes and efficiency gains.
The candidates could address this issue and others through a smart combination of government and markets, so why is it largely not happening?
It seems the leading Democrats choose to ignore when markets can work, and leading Republicans choose to ignore when government can work. It is a choice probably made from ideological and political considerations. Regardless, ignoring opportunities for the government or the market to improve our lives it is not good for the future of this country.
Thankfully, there is a third way between these two partisan extremes: focusing on what measures empower the individual.
This criterion requires admitting that less government, if you are liberal, or more government, if you are conservative, are not always evil concepts. I am a big fan of Ronald Reagan, but even his record accepts this philosophy to a certain degree, despite his famous anti-government catch phrases,. His administration oversaw the largest decrease in domestic discretionary spending since World War II, but it also signed into law the largest increase in entitlement spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Our future political leaders need to utilize the policy flexibility allowed by trusting both smart government and market solutions. There are too many problems in our country today not to adopt this complete policy toolbox. If you believe 2008 should be the year of “change”, then start giving government and markets a fair hearing. Things will not improve unless we are more honest about their successes and failures, and in Reagan’s words: “If not us, who? And if not now, when?”
A minor correction was made on Jan. 22, 2007.
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 8:56am):
The first thing we have to do is get Neil Bush (Mr. Savings & Loan Scandal) away from the steering wheel of our economy.
The second thing we have to do is not elect John McCain (Senator Keating Five Scandal) to the White House.
The third step is to balance our trade deficit by reversing the obscene amount of oil we have to import.
The fourth step, pray.
Corey Sheahan (January 30, 2008 @ 5:25pm):
The title really fails to do this article justice.
Overall, I thought the analysis was solid: the government's role is to ensure that market-based solutions are feasible and enforcible.
Opposing policies because they clash with a party's political ideology is always an everywhere a bad idea.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
