Obama's Election Didn't Change Rules Of Economics The Chief Problem With National Health Care Remains Unsolved By Jerry E. Clark   Many American voters chose Barack Obama for President, both in 2008 and again in 2012, due to his position of favoring a new, bold, and allegedly more inclusive health care "system." They've gotten far more than they bargained for, a heaping load of confusion, in many cases far higher costs, and a big load of disappointment. That is, in the short run. There is much more in store for the public as this national saga unfolds, however. Few on the right side of the political spectrum have properly given credit to President Obama for tackling the serious problem of health care availability for the poor and the indigent. Their chief source of health care for decades now (other than Medicaid) has been to show up at hospital emergency rooms for treatment. The costs resulting from not having a system to deal with this problem have been enormous, as Mr. Obama rightly pointed out. The public obviously agreed and made him president twice. But President Obama and his supporters mistakenly have ignored one of the main impediments to affordable health care: cost. To date, no plan has emerged (nor is there one in the works) which even attempts to deal with health care costs, other than planned reductions in government payments to health care providers under various provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This approach won't solve the underlying cost problem. The only thing that will accomplish cost reduction in the long run is via vastly increased competition. The election of Mr. Obama, his speeches, and the legislation created to put into place his health care vision will never reduce health care costs. Just like all else in our complicated world, however, a greater supply of an item will inevitably reduce its price. More doctors, more hospitals and clinics, and many more health care professionals well-trained and occupying first class new facilities, would do the trick. That can't be accomplished via a redistributionist economic philosophy and multi-thousand page laws - but could be promoted by a leader who clearly understands how business and economics work. That leader is not the current president. It seems that Mr. Obama was clearly right when he said "elections have consequences." Unfortunately, having an individual in charge of the world's largest "business" (i.e. the United States government) who has zero business experience, will cause a long delay in putting things right in the health care world. If we really want lower health care costs and wish to maintain the quality of American health care, we're going to have to have another election to get a leader and competent team in charge that clearly understands the concept of supply and demand. (Author's note: you are invited to reply or respond to this editorial or any other. Please refer to editorial 001 when you do so. Supply your name, address, and a phone number if you wish your remarks to be published). Click here to send me an email.)

* * * * *