Just wanted to point out one little fact about the senate's socialized medicine bill.
It carries a price tag of $849 billion -- and that's using kinda fuzzy figures, like it relies on cutting about $500 billion from Medicare (which probably won't happen) and other economic fundamentals that equate to building a 100-storey highrise on a sandy beach.
Anyway, so it costs $849 billion that Harry Reid and Baucus will admit to.
But the CBO says it will save the USA $167 billion over ten years. Whoopee!!!!!
I wonder if the CBO has factored in the inflation this kind of spending will cause -- in medical demand as well as in dollars -- the unhappy repercussions of the collapse of the private insurance industry, and a permanent unemployment rate of maybe something like 20%.
Hot dang! Kinda like one of those deals where you buy a machine for $5,000.00, and it will save you $37.50 in labor costs over the first year of installation -- or actually the fifth year of installation, if we stick to the timeline of the senate socialized medicine bill. How's that for return-on-investment? Who wouldn't want a stake in something like that?
I don't know... Does this make any sense? Spend $849 billion, get $167 billion in return. Somehow, that fails to impress. It's a real deal ONLY if you ignore the cost.
You can tell those jokers in congress don't know anything about economics. Or about math, either, for that matter.
And this doesn't even touch on things like the shortage of health care professionals that will result in unacceptable wait-times for service, rationed care -- especially to seniors (stick 'em on an ice floe and shove 'em off to sea) -- the serious loss of medical research and development that may prove to be catastrophic over time, and other likely effects of socialized medicine. "Likely" because this is exactly what has happened in every other nation on earth that has socialized medicine.
And no one will have an America to go to anymore for "real" care -- or for freedom from instrusive and predatory government, either. That's the very worst of it.
Why not just line us all up against a wall and shoot us? Hey, think of all the money you'd save!!
And you know what? The very moment you adopt the "we" assumption -- as in "we" spend too much for health care -- you're buying into the socialist's irrationality and bad logic. It's only "we" if we allow the government to force us into some big ugly, faceless pool where we become no more than numbers on a ledger sheet. Otherwise, it's "you" or "me" as individuals spend whatever we want on health care. That is, we get to keep our own choices and freedom in the matter.
Which scenario do you prefer?
No comments:
Post a Comment