Beyond politics: Guns, not children

by Leigh Pomeroy

Suppose there were a Democratic president. And suppose, just for fun, this president's name was Edward O'Clinton. And suppose President O'Clinton knowingly used manipulated intelligence to bring the United States into a war that came to cost U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a week.

And suppose at the same time President O'Clinton opposed spending $12 billion a year to provide health care for poor children in this country — less than two percent of the cost of the war. Instead, he said that $6 billion a year was enough — less than one percent of the cost of the war — because to spend more would "open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."

Er, now wait a minute. Let me get this straight. President O'Clinton thinks it's great for the government to spend over $600 billion a year on killing, maiming and generally raising havoc, but it's not right for the government to spend $12 billion a year providing health care to children — some of whom may end up having to fight that same war some 15 years in the future, the way things are going.

No doubt the Republicans, wanting to take over the White House, would be hopping mad. And you know what, most Democrats would be hopping mad too, just like they were hopping mad when President Lyndon Johnson expanded the war in Vietnam. Indeed, there would be hell to pay on both sides, and Congress, exercising its constitutional duties, would do everything it could to exert its will overriding President O'Clinton's ill-conceived policies.

President O'Clinton, of course, is a fictional character. But the scenario is not. The madman in the White House is not a Democrat, but a Republican. And guns, not children, is his official policy.

Yet Congress is not hopping mad in this real scenario. Instead, both parties just seem to be going along for the ride. Their children and grandchildren are not having to fight the war. Their children and grandchildren have health care, much of it government funded. Why should they care about the children and grandchildren of ordinary American citizens?

Back to President O'Clinton. He has a reason for limiting health care for children. It's because he doesn't want "people to switch from private insurance to the government." Private insurance good, government bad. Right?

Wrong. As countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan have proven, and as U.S. programs operated by the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid have demonstrated, government can administrate its health care programs far more efficiently than private insurance can, spending as much as 50% less on administrative costs. And at the same time, their health care outcomes as good or better than those funded by private insurance companies.

So, President O'Clinton, your argument doesn't hold water.

So now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about those weapons of mass destruction....

(NOTE: Anyone who wants to know about how to cut health care costs while improving patient choice of provider and maintaining top quality outcomes should read Kip Sullivan's The Health Care Mess, available here.)