When President Obama and supporting members of Congress touted the new health care plan, since coined as "Obamacare," voters were told it must be done to help the millions of people who do not have health insurance, and what a travesty it is for a person not to have proper insurance. We were told that the savings in health costs would make up for the cost of the program. Further, legislators were asking why wouldn't we want to help those who can't afford health insurance.
The bigger question is do we really know how much it will cost to run this program. The United Kingdom recently announced it will need $158 billion to sustain their health care program. $158 billion -- with a b. If it will cost that much for a country a fraction the size of the United States, what will it do to us? The question should continue to be about cost-benefit. Colorado legislators of late have spoken with more reality than elected officials often are known for. Prior to the November election, Greg Brophy said legislators need to budget what the state needs before what it wants. Finally, some sense in government. The reality is many young people don't buy health insurance because it is not a necessity. Unless you are a adrenaline junky or were impacted by a disorder at a young age, "major medical" sounds like a foreign language. And where is the motivation to improve yourself if the man serving fastfood gets the same benefits as the woman managing websites? The first inequity that should be resolved is between Congress and the general population. What is good for the elected body is good for the general population, and vice versa.
Legislators, short of doctors who have gone into policymaking, have little reason to decide who will receive what procedures, but that is what can be expected in the health care package. Since the election, a bill was passed on party lines to overturn Obamacare. It is not expected to pass in the Senate. Somewhere, our leaders have forgotten that this country was founded on the basis of minimal government, not seductive maneuvering and control by any means. The idea that healtcare is needed to protect commerce is to say there is already a problem. The problem is that the best way to control a population is through fear, implied or clearly defined threats. What is becoming increasingly clear is too much of our country has forgotten its roots and fear is the best and most used of population control weapons.
It is true that the cost of health care is out of control to the average consumer. But,it does not make sense to tell the nation that each of us will buy insurance, that even men will have to have maternity coverage. it does not make sense
to leverage the nation's currency in foreign issues when we can't cover the value of our dollar as it is. We need to return to being a nation of voters, people who are actively interested in what our representatives are doing in our name, and that will impact us. If we don't, we have only one person to blame when taxes jump to cover "necessary costs," and we are so leveraged to other countries we really have no choice but to raise taxes.
We can add to the list of lunacy the very discussion of raising the debt ceiling. If we need to raise the debt ceiling, we need to do some serious evaluating of what we are spending money on. It should strike each of us as complete stupidity when Congressmen would not support the "Page-Go," fund as you approve programs, rather than approve programs then find the money even at the cost of borrowing against the future. That is bad practice for an individual or business; why should it be any less so for the country?
Once again, seek the simplest answer and it will likely be the best: if you don't have the money, don't buy the product or service, and your "Uncle Mel" will not always bail you out of bad decisions.