PARADISE LOST 2010-08-23: Healthcare "Freebies" for U.S. Friends

The U.S. Government takes a shot at exporting some Obamacare Light

Saturday 21 June, 2010, Guatemala’s Prensa Libre published a page-two article covering an Obama administration decision to involve the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, the Department of Treasury, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and Peace Corps in an expensive project to implement the administration's Global Health Initiative (GHI). The announcement, initially published on the Department of State’s website 18 June, 2010 , announces a list (referred to as GHI Plus) of eight countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, and Rwanda) as the initial beneficiaries.

According to the announcement:

·       “GHI is a six-year, $63 billion initiative to help partner countries improve measurable health outcomes by strengthening health systems and building upon proven results. It places a particular focus on improving the health of women, newborns and children.”

The announcement does not detail how much aid each country will receive over the specified six years. Presuming simple math and equal distribution, the eight chosen countries from a list of 80 “partner countries” the GHI program encompasses, will each receive $7.875 billion dollars (avg. $1.3125 billion/year) during the initial period.

That is a considerable amount of U.S. taxpayer money. It follows that there are some questions requiring consideration:

1. What evidence is there the U.S. Government has a track record supporting its competence in investing $63 of the people's money in implementing quantum changes, a sort of Obamacare Light, in eight countries' current healthcare systems? It certainly doesn't derive from the mockery to intelligence that Obamacare, a five-ream Gordian Knot of bureaucratic double-speak claiming to bring universal healhcare to the U.S. public. Even U.S. legislators, technically Obamacare's authors, can't seem to understand their own handiwork, much less explain its implications to the U.S. public.
2. Who is in charge? There are eight already bloated government bureaucracies cited as involved with this project. There is ample history that any two government agencies you can choose will fail to cooperate effectively in any project they undertake on behalf othe U.S. taxpayers. How will seven manage to work effectively?
3. Governments need to hire manpower to spend other people's money. How much will each GHI Plus country have to spend for the costs related to hiring, training and paying the additional strata of government bureaucrats needed to oversee this ambitious project in each country? 
4. How do we know they can afford the internal costs of accepting U.S. generosity for the long-term?
5. How much will the U.S. government have to assign to its national budget to assign the needed publicly-financed manpower in each of the respective U.S. Missions overseas to support the beneficiary countries in achieving the GHI program's announced objectives?
6. Can the U.S. Government afford the costs of implementing our laudable generosity? The U.S. government has already mortgaged the next three generations' productivity. We haven't even begun to borrow/spend on our own domestic Obamacare yet.  
7. What exactly will the United States and its people derive from this project? Is it just for a 63-billion-dollar warm and fuzzy feeling? Have we imposed any conditions on the beneficiaries as tangible goals? Anything like "friends forever" at least.
8. Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it specify that the Federal Government as the authority to spend public funds on public healthcare projects outside its own borders? More importantly, where in the same docuemnt does it say the power to regulate Domestic National Healthcare belongs in the hands of the Feds?

The U.S. is a country of generous people. It has demonstrated this trait repeatedly since 1776. No country in written history has shared as much of its national wealth and resources in so generous a fashion as the United States.


There is nothing wrong with U.S. generosity. What is wrong is the gradual degeneration of this virtue's purpose and effect as Americans have allowed themselves to be convinced that the responsibility and administration of this generosity can be left to the Federal Government, task for which it was not designed.

As a nation of caring people Americans repeatedly fall victim to their generous impulses by failing to contemplate how such generosity should be meted-out to obtain the maximum effect. By "outsourcing" implementation of their generous impulses to the U.S. government, Americans do themselves and their beneficiaries a great disservice. Government is not capable of efficiently administering any project. That is not its purpose and by the same token, it is EXACTLY why the U.S. founders sought to strictly limit the Federal Government's involvement in citizens' daily lives. 

The Founding Fathers understood the foolhardiness of relying on politicians to dispense generosity selflessly. In general, politicians' objective while holding office are just that, to hold office. Obviously, this runs counter to selfless behavior, especially when elected official are charged with spending "other people's money" in the course of assuring themselves the opportunity to continue holding the reins of elected office and the powers conferred to this privilege and responsibility.

The idea of redirecting and refocusing the Federal Government's purpose and scope in line with the original plan as outlined int he constitution needs urgent attention and immediate action.