Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:35:48 PM
I have a very simple question. Let us say I run a company employing 100 people. I say that right now the cost of parking downtown is too high. If employees continue having to pay for parking, it will make the salary noncompetitive. So, as a solution, I propose requiring every employee to rent a parking space (at the same rate), but we will subsidize it for some employees, though it will cost a small contribution from each employee, a contribution greater than each employee is now paying for parking. And then I claim this will save the employees.
Do you think I am in my right mind?
So, how do the Democrats, with a straight face, say our government will go bankrupt due to health care costs, unless we pass their plan, when their plan
COSTS MORE? If we can't afford medicare now, how do we afford it when we have more people? And how is an admitted trillion dollar expense, saving money? Especially when we know a trillion dollars in "government money" is like a year in "dog years", probably 10 trillion or more. Add to that the fact that the government, which says people can't afford insurance, is making people buy the insurance they say they can't afford. Oh, they will subsidize some, but only by taxing the rest, who they say were going bankrupt anyway.
Does any of this make sense?
I know the left was famous for thinking we could spend our way into prosperity, claiming taking money from business and pouring it down government sinkholes would make us rich, but this is just so absurd I don't think anyone could believe it. If we are going bankrupt from health care costs, how does paying more stop that?
Unless, of course, they really plan to use this as a first step to outright nationalization, followed by rationing and denial of services. Then I suppose it makes perfect sense.
Though it would be nice if they just admitted that up front. Something quite disturbing about a government which not only feels the need to pay off congress members with perks, benefits, subsidies and exemptions just to get a bill passed, but something even worse when pundits on the left admit the policy is just a means to bankrupt health insurers so they can force us into "single payer" nationalization("
Confirmation, Yet Again", "
Some Questions About Health Care", "
Who Will Decide", "
The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "
Public Insurance").
I know the left thinks they are on the side of the angels, but honestly, is it right for anyone, right or left, to pass a bill by lying? Isn't it important in a representative government that, no matter what else they do, the politicians tell us why they are passing the bills they do? Or does the left so firmly believe in the stupidity of the average American (and their own arrogant superiority -- see "
Bad Economics Part 5", "
Bad Economics Part 9" and "
Racketeering Through Legislation") that they think it is right for politicians to lie to us to get the "right bills" passed?
That troubles me even more than the health care bill itself.
POSTSCRIPT
For those interested in health care, I recommend "
Negative and Positive Rights", "
High Cost of Medical Care", "
Government Efficiency", "
Misunderstanding Profits", "
The Devil is in the Definitions (And Assumptions)", "
Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism", "
Medical Reform, An Overview", "
Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "
Envy And Analogy, "
The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "
The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "
Envy Kills", "
Who Will Decide and "
Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine". There are dozens of other posts on this blog, but I find those the best starting points. A more complete list can be found by following the links in "
A Different Look at "Health Care Reform"" and "
Some Questions About Health Care". Finally, though it is a very extreme position, I would like to mention my posts "
Medical Regulations" and "
Medical Regulation II", arguing for the complete deregulation of medicine, including licensing and prescription laws. I know many don't agree with me, but it would do more to reduce health care costs than any current plan, Democrat or Republican. Just see "
Government Efficiency" for one example, or perhaps "
Professional Education", "
Business Licensing and Regulation", "
Bad Economics Part 3" or "
Bad Economics Part 5".
POSTSCRIPT II
By the way, there is an interesting quote in my old post "
Big Government Creates New Problems":
One interesting point for all those on the left who want single-payer,
nationalized health care. If we give total control over health care tot
he government, and an anti-abortion majority should win congress, it
could serve as a de facto revocation of Roe v. Wade.
They would not have to make abortion illegal, just stop paying for them
while leaving them legal. With a single payer plan, this would have the
same effect as banning. especially if the plan includes
HillaryCare-style prohibitions on out of pocket spending.
Something for proponents of both single-payer and abortion to consider.
This should disturb anyone with pro-choice leanings who supports nationalized health care, or even this hybrid monster we seem to be about to pass. If insurance exists as essentially a governmental service, be it privately provided to not, it would not be hard to end abortion by simply refusing to allow insurance to cover it. With all Americans used to using insurance for all medical costs, and with costs soaring due to anti-competitive forces caused by insurance ("
High Cost of Medical Care", "
My Health Care Plan", "
Medical Reform, An Overview", "
Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "
The Insurance Sham", "
Again?", "
Reviving Nonsense in the White House"), how likely is it poor women could even afford an abortion, or even the wealthy would be willing, or able, to pay what one would cost absent insurance? National health care provides the single easiest means to reverse
Roe without ever setting foot in court, much less altering the Constitution.