After so much negativity that could only puzzle a neutral
observer, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have finally decided to reveal
how it all comes together. They do so in an editorial they wrote under the
title: “Manias, Panics and ObamaCare Crashes” and the subtitle: “A reader's
guide to the coming Affordable Care Act Traumas.” It was published in the
Journal on November 23, 2013.
The editors say they are doing this “in the tradition of
service journalism” because “President Obama says not to worry about the
Affordable Care Act's botched rollout.” But they thought they'd “offer a
reader's guide to the potential traumas to come” because they are troubled by
the question: “What if the troubles are only beginning because they're built
into the law?”
No doubt these are legitimate concerns, and they deserve
both the attention and the respect of the readers. Now, given that the subject
matter is a complex one, we seek help where we can find it. Usually a human issue
of this complexity can be broken into small pieces, each of which can be
compared to a situation taken from another discipline. If lucky, we might find
the right analogy in the sciences because science is the most exact of the
disciplines, and the comparison – if we can find it – will yield a result that
will be as clear as it will ever get.
The concerns of the Journal editors fall into three
categories. First and foremost, there is the overall cost of the plan: who will
pay for it, and who will receive how much of the money that will be disbursed?
Second, there is the question as to whether or not the game is worth the candle
despite the fact that the system it is replacing has been declared
unsustainable. Third, there is the question as to whether or not the technology
will be ready in time to handle a plan of this magnitude and this complexity.
To tackle the first concern, we look at science where we
find a perfect analogy. It often happens that in solving a complex physical
problem, we have to work it in small pieces. A simple example would be to
transport an object of known mass from point A to point E by going through
points B, C and D. But after we do the math for each segment, we're not sure if
we did each and every calculation correctly. We want to verify, so we do the
ultimate test which is to compare the sum total of the “energy expended” with
the energy that theory says would be needed to transport an object of that
known mass directly from point A to point E. If the two numbers match, we know
we did the math correctly. If there is a discrepancy, it means we made a
mistake somewhere.
So, let's assume that the ideal theoretical amount that
should be spent on healthcare in America is 3 trillion dollars which
is close to what is spent now. Even though something like 50 million Americans
are not covered by insurance, nobody is deliberately left to die because they
lack coverage. This means that one way or the other; the 3 trillion dollars
spent on healthcare cover the 320 million people who live in America today.
If as a result of the implementation of the new system, the
cost will rise to a much higher level, it would indicate that someone is taking
advantage of the difficulties to falsely enrich themselves. Thus, if it is true
that the editors of the Journal are doing what they say they are doing “in the
tradition of service journalism,” they would be looking in those areas. But
this is not what they seem to be doing because all indications are to the
effect that they are chasing wild geese in search of political reasons they can
throw at the Obama administration. They are the ones playing the political
game, not the administration.
As to the question whether or not the game is worth the
candle, science has shown that if the Soviet Union could put a Sputnik into
orbit around the Earth, America
could put a man on the moon and bring him back. Likewise, if all the advanced
nations can have a system that covers everyone, delivers better healthcare and
does it at a lower cost, so can America .
So why it is that America
is not taking up this challenge?
Now to the website. Will it work well enough and be ready on
time? Well, if the editors of the Journal continue to gloat about the
difficulties that the builders are encountering, maybe those editors should
pick up their marbles and go seek asylum in North Korea or something because
they are no more patriotic than the fifth column which runs the American
Congress at this time. Meanwhile, the website will be fixed one way or the
other, if not on time, a little after that – but nobody will die as a result.