So, Obama wants to spend $1 Trillion over the next ten years to provide Health Care for 16 million uninsured Americans. Nevermind that this number isn't set in stone, and is a fraction of what the actual cost will be, but for argument's sake, we'll use it. Here are the numbers broken down, $1 Trillion divided by 16 million is $62,500 per person over a ten year period. Hmm... I have Kaiser, and I pay about $350 a month, which is a total of $4,200 per year. Using 4% (average projected growth rate for Health Care Costs), after ten years, the total cost of Health Insurance for me will be $50,426. If the Federal Government paid for these people to have my Health Insurance plan, after ten years the cost would be $807 Billion. For some reason, can't put my finger on it, I almost believe it would be better if the Federal Government just bought these people a Health Insurance plan.
This does not even take into account that family plans cost less per person than individual plans. This does not take into account that if the Federal Government just purchased Health Insurance for the uninsured, 3.8 million more uninsured would get coverage than the proposed 16 million. Knowing that the insured burden the cost of the uninsured, this does not take into account the realized savings that would occur for people that pay for their own insurance. Hence, making Health Care more affordable. These are just a few of the financial considerations that come to mind.
We all know how efficient the DMV, AmTrak, Social Security Administration, Post Office, etc. are. Oh wait, they're not. It's okay though, 60% of Americans pay Federal Income Taxes; the other 40% are too poor to, but they'll be the ones receiving this benefit at public largesse and won't trouble themselves with whatever future price tag that comes with it. I ponder the thought that the Democrat Party is buying the Public. Hmm... at least 40% of them, and there are enough useful idiots in the other 60% to help ensure Democrat dominance in future elections. If only the milquetoast Republicans could make the argument that this is a theft of Liberty. Oh, forgot, under Bush they created Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Shall we say cheers to the proposed Obama Health Care-Not Plan?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Enough is enough
In this Bloomberg article, "California Democrats Seek Tax Boost as Battle Looms," the title says it all. California Voters rejected the May Ballot initiatives seeking to raise taxes to close the $24 Billion deficit. What were Obama's words, oh yeah, 'I won, so I'm gonna trump you on that." Well, California Voters won and we're going to trump you on that. No new taxes. No raising taxes. Now cut the damn budget. We understand the consequences.
However, I have a proposal. Let's not go through the budget and cut program's budgets in order to keep all current programs. Let's ask ourselves, what do we really need from our State. We pay gas taxes for infrastructure projects. We pay CA State Disability Insurance (Income Tax) in case we get injured on the job. We pay Sales Taxes, soon to be 9.75% in LA County. Some of the money is retained by the State, the other portion is distributed to local and county municipalities for their general budgets. We pay property taxes to pay for public education. What do students need most in order to be educated? Books and teachers. Special, expensive programs or technology should be put on the back burner until revenues increase enough in order to provide for these non-essential expenditures. On and on the process goes.
When the revenues are spent on these essential services, and there's no funding left for projects such as paying five years of welfare benefits to single mothers taking education classes, that's too bad. When our prison system has to cut theatre classes, stop maintaining tennis courts, lose cable TV, that's too damn bad. Our State Legislatures need to provide us with a list of essential priorities and continue to fund those priorities as usual. The non-essential programs have to go until the Economic situation improves to the point we can begin to fund them again. Will our State be worse off without these non-essential programs, absolutely not. It's inexcusable as well to withhold county and local municipality revenues when the State isn't mature enough to control its spending.
One last thing, if our State made itself more competitive by lowering Income Taxes and Sales Taxes; businesses and rich individuals (aka people with disposable income) will move here and help create jobs, thus boost our sagging economy. As long as Politicians' focus is to hose the productive segment of Society for the benefit of the not-so-productive segment of Society; the productive segment will vanish.
However, I have a proposal. Let's not go through the budget and cut program's budgets in order to keep all current programs. Let's ask ourselves, what do we really need from our State. We pay gas taxes for infrastructure projects. We pay CA State Disability Insurance (Income Tax) in case we get injured on the job. We pay Sales Taxes, soon to be 9.75% in LA County. Some of the money is retained by the State, the other portion is distributed to local and county municipalities for their general budgets. We pay property taxes to pay for public education. What do students need most in order to be educated? Books and teachers. Special, expensive programs or technology should be put on the back burner until revenues increase enough in order to provide for these non-essential expenditures. On and on the process goes.
When the revenues are spent on these essential services, and there's no funding left for projects such as paying five years of welfare benefits to single mothers taking education classes, that's too bad. When our prison system has to cut theatre classes, stop maintaining tennis courts, lose cable TV, that's too damn bad. Our State Legislatures need to provide us with a list of essential priorities and continue to fund those priorities as usual. The non-essential programs have to go until the Economic situation improves to the point we can begin to fund them again. Will our State be worse off without these non-essential programs, absolutely not. It's inexcusable as well to withhold county and local municipality revenues when the State isn't mature enough to control its spending.
One last thing, if our State made itself more competitive by lowering Income Taxes and Sales Taxes; businesses and rich individuals (aka people with disposable income) will move here and help create jobs, thus boost our sagging economy. As long as Politicians' focus is to hose the productive segment of Society for the benefit of the not-so-productive segment of Society; the productive segment will vanish.
Herr Charles "Joseph Göbbels" Gibson
I wrote my two US Senators and my US House of Representative the following:
"'Prescription for America' by Charlie Gibson will be hosted on June 24, 2009 in the Blue Room of the White House. It's my understanding that this will be a one-sided debate about National Health Care in America. As a Capitalist, I'm opposed to any Socialist remedy that taxes one segment of our Society to provide a benefit for another segment of Society. It's becoming blatantly apparent that Network News and most Cable News Networks are Propaganda Organs for the Obama Administration. I encourage you to stand up for a debate on ideas and end this ridiculous media circus; or is it that Charlie Gibson is the Joseph Goebbels of this Administration?"
Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (wikipedia). Though Charlie Gibson is not a Cabinet Member or Politician, he serves the Administration by promoting its cause. In this case, National Health Care. It's not just unfair that this is a propaganda piece for the Administration, it's disingenuous on the issue of rectifying our Health Care system. The Obama Administration has not only defined the problem, it's proposed the only acceptable cure. The solution isn't a ghastly new Federal Bureaucracy such as what Obama proposes either. However, how are we going to have a genuine debate over this issue when a major Network News channel is acting like the mouthpiece for this Administration? Goebbels and Hitler believed that if you told a big enough lie, the public would believe it through public credulity. National Health Care is that lie.
"'Prescription for America' by Charlie Gibson will be hosted on June 24, 2009 in the Blue Room of the White House. It's my understanding that this will be a one-sided debate about National Health Care in America. As a Capitalist, I'm opposed to any Socialist remedy that taxes one segment of our Society to provide a benefit for another segment of Society. It's becoming blatantly apparent that Network News and most Cable News Networks are Propaganda Organs for the Obama Administration. I encourage you to stand up for a debate on ideas and end this ridiculous media circus; or is it that Charlie Gibson is the Joseph Goebbels of this Administration?"
Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (wikipedia). Though Charlie Gibson is not a Cabinet Member or Politician, he serves the Administration by promoting its cause. In this case, National Health Care. It's not just unfair that this is a propaganda piece for the Administration, it's disingenuous on the issue of rectifying our Health Care system. The Obama Administration has not only defined the problem, it's proposed the only acceptable cure. The solution isn't a ghastly new Federal Bureaucracy such as what Obama proposes either. However, how are we going to have a genuine debate over this issue when a major Network News channel is acting like the mouthpiece for this Administration? Goebbels and Hitler believed that if you told a big enough lie, the public would believe it through public credulity. National Health Care is that lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)