Believe it or not, government isn’t always clueless
Complaints about government at all levels have been around for many years. It is assumed that anything that government does could be done better, faster and less expensively in the private sector. This idea is then matched with the notion that, if only taxes were reduced, the private sector would take on everything that government does and do it better and less expensively.
Having worked both for government and in the private sector, I find the observations often unfair. Further, there are things that government does that private businesses would not do or, if they did, they would do it at much greater expense.
Personally, I believe that government performs certain tasks well. Private business performs certain other tasks well. Some functions can be performed adequately by either the government or private sector, and private-public partnerships should be explored to maximum advantage.
Not even the most anti-government citizen is likely to propose that we have a private military to fight foreign wars, even if this were allowed by the Constitution. A few experiments with privately operated prisons have generally been disasters.
Medicare, partially because of its volume purchasing power, has been consistently more cost effective in most instances than private health insurance for the same demographic — the elderly and disabled.
As to Medicaid, private health insurers for obvious underwriting and financial reasons, typically do not want the indigent and chronically ill.
Even as to level of service, it is unfair to characterize government services overall as lower in quality. We forget that government includes everything from tour guides at the Statue of Liberty to scientists at the National Institutes of Health, from legislators and judges to caseworkers and prosecutors. Even the Congressional office holders themselves who propose reducing the size of government are paid by government.
To argue whether government or private business is better is like arguing whether a hammer or screwdriver is better. It depends on the job.
This is the basis for budget plans, including the one recently proposed by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, and passed by the House last week.
The idea is that, if only taxes were reduced even further than they were with the reductions put in place in December 2010, private business would create more jobs and money would magically flow back into the federal treasury.
Under Ryan’s plan, Medicare would be converted to vouchers which seniors could use to help pay for insurance. The cost to the consumer would be of no concern — at least to the government.
Medicaid could be handled by the states with the federal government merely handing out the funds and leaving implementation to the states where it would be “closer to the people.”
These ideas remind me of the T-Mobile commercial for phone service where the character for AT&T says his idea makes sense “so long as you don’t think about it.”
Those ideas that you could not think about would include what would happen if seniors, with dramatically increased health insurance costs, returned to the government for relief and the vouchers (or “premium supports”) were not enough.
Also, would Americans be willing to accept a Medicaid system that would not, for instance, pay for nursing home care for the elderly disabled or would greatly restrict the number of nursing home beds available?
The argument regarding “entitlements” also skirts certain issues. With Medicare and Social Security, for instance, taxpayers pay into the systems with the expectation that they will receive certain benefits.
This is not true of other expenditures by the government that do not have dedicated funding streams. Medicare and Social Security are not a “free ride” but are viewed by the participants as returns on their investment. If the return is inadequate and additional funds are needed, adjustments need to be made, but to view the programs as entirely voluntary payments by the federal government is unfair to the contributors.
In the last analysis both private sector involvement and government have contributed to making our country what it is today and government is not just part of the problem but part of the solution as well.
For more, listen to “50+ Planning Ahead” a weekly radio program on WCHE 1520 on every Wednesday from 4:30 pm to 5:00 pm with Janet Colliton, Colliton Law Assocs., PC, and Phil McFadden of Home Instead Senior Care.
About the Author Janet Colliton
Esquire, Colliton Law Associates, P.C. Janet Colliton has practiced law for over 38 years, 37 of them in Chester County, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. Her practice, Colliton Law Associates, PC, is limited to elder law, Medicaid, including advice, applications and appeals, and other benefits planning including Veterans benefits, life care and special needs planning, guardianships, retirement, and estate planning and administration.