Generally government intervention into the market results in higher costs to the consumer. Most recently this can be seen in various sections of Obamacare: new rules and taxes have increased premiums for many people. A few weeks ago I wrote about the HIT tax and its negative impact on the healthcare market. This is due to its nature of picking winners and losers in that particular market.
However, this does not mean that every foray the federal government has taken into healthcare is negative. A successful program that has been operating for some time, Medicare Part D, is an example of how a program run by the government can be successful. For those who are not very familiar with Medicare Part D, it is a prescription drug benefits plan that allows the free-market competition which has led to affordable prices and easy access for prescription drugs and premiums for our seniors.
Part D has been very successful for over 10 years.
Part D in a way is a stark contrast to the HIT; instead of inserting itself into the market to pick winners and losers, Part D allows the consumer the freedom to choose in the marketplace. This drives competition and allows the free market to continue to function instead of (an attempt) to control of the market by artificial government means. The choice for the government to be involved in healthcare via Medicare and Medicaid was made long ago: supporting an aspect of these programs that still allows for competition in the marketplace is commonsense.
Unsurprisingly Part D has come under negative attention from the left who want to change the fundamental aspect of why this program works so well. These are the same politicians who will not be happy until every aspect of life is controlled from Washington DC. Instead of allowing market choice to continue, some policy makers are calling for direct governmental control of Part D prescriptions. Part D is popular among seniors and has consistently comes in under budget projections. Hillary Clinton, who is more likely than not the Democratic nominee, has specifically stated her intents to change Part D into another government run, Obamacare-like failure. Thank God we have had Republicans in Congress use commonsense to protect the program from ideologically based changes proposed by the Obama Administration. So my question to both Clinton and Obama: why change a program that is obviously working?
Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama care more about liberal ideology than what is best for our seniors.
Leave it to liberal politicians to change a popular program that actually works. Meanwhile the VA is a national disgrace they would rather sweep under the rug. Hopefully our Ohio delegation will push Congress to continue to protect our seniors by ensuring that Medicare Part D does not become another over budget, government controlled healthcare nightmare.
