Universal health care will increase debt

By: Wes Heinkel

Posted: 4/2/08

I was sitting in a chair, eating honey- roasted peanuts and drinking a tall, cool Natural Light with Marty McFly and Dr. Emmit Brown discussing the future of this great country in light of the upcoming presidential elections.

Will the Democrats fight like schoolchildren to get on the merry-go-round ride that will only leave them dazed and confused, paving the way for hero John McCain (and, yes, he is a hero) to take the Oval Office?

That was the question that sparked the debate and led my mind to even more important philosophical questions, most notably those of fiscal discipline, public debt, deficits and where does or should our government stand on these issues?

As the Democrats' talking points consistently bring up the apparently noble idea (mind my cynicism) of universal health care in light of our current crisis - the fact that this country's national debt is at an astounding $9 trillion - we must ask ourselves if the government should take on more responsibility and if it is even capable.

For shock and awe value, I feel obligated to write this number out in digits, so prepare yourself - the U.S. is $9,391,107,000,846 in debt. Now that damn thing has its own gravitational pull and the sun is getting a little too close for comfort. Apparently Al Gore was right - it is getting hotter.

So here is my point. The Republican Party has fundamentally lost its way by swapping fiscal discipline for power and votes. Democrats, too, believe in these massive government bureaucracies, government intervention, welfare benefits and all the other handouts our society craves. We should ask ourselves what is being done with our money and do we really want this American government entity to grow? Can we trust this body that clearly has lost all sense of fiscal responsibility to run an American universal health care system? I think not.

Beyond that, have we forgotten the only true way to drive down prices is to let the service or commodities compete in an open, low-tax environment where entrepreneurs "instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano"? The fact is, right now the United States has the best doctors, best equipment and best care in the world, and if we switch to a single-payer government system, you can kiss that fact goodbye.

Universal health care should not even be on the table judging by our current situation. Democrats are already talking about universal health care but fail to address the long- term benefits already promised by our government to the "baby boomers." We should already be trying to balance our budgets with surpluses to deal with the difficult years we know are coming due to Social Security (which you and I will be paying for) and Medicaid.

It is sad there are people who disagree. They have the logic that because we are $9 trillion in debt, we are somehow poised to implement a universal health care system, which will expand government, raise taxes, work less efficiently and put you and me, the citizens, more in debt to our government. It occurred to me while writing that many of you would scoff at the simplicity of understanding the government could not and should not grow any larger.

So, after Doc and I did some much-needed tweaking on the flux-capacitor, we jumped in the DeLorean to travel back in time to speak with men who are all too familiar with governments and public debt. As we accelerated to 88 mph, the flux-capacitor kicked in, sending us through the time-space-continuum. There I was in 1801 ready for my interview with the man, the myth, the legend - newly elected President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.

I just asked him what he thought about government and debt. He answered: "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments.

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

It's OK, even Doc's jaw dropped after hearing that one.

After talking with Jefferson, I convinced Doc to travel back even further to about 63 B.C. to talk to a political philosopher named Cicero. Perhaps you've heard of him. I asked him the same exact question. He replied with brilliant oratory skills that "the budget should be balanced; public debt should be reduced, the treasury should be rebuilt, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall."

Bravo, I thought to myself, knowing that Rome did indeed fall.

So, as of now, each American citizen's share of the debt is hovering right around $31,000, which leads me to believe cutting spending for a while might be a good idea. Or we can do the whole "universal health care thing" and borrow money from the Japanese for our check-ups. Call me crazy.