VIEWS ON HEALTH CARE LAW


Published first on March 23, 2010:

The elected representatives of The United States of America are on the verge of instituting a “universal health plan” for many additional citizens, including a significant number of “Latino Americans”…  The plan was ostensibly passed not only to provide insurance for many needy people, but also to lower health costs (as a part of GDP) and to eliminate the federal deficit in approximately 10 years.

Although the heavy lifting and shoveling to implement this plan will not take place until presumably the president is re-elected to a second term, and even after he presumably will be out of office after his second term, many of the goodies go into effect almost immediately.

The heavy lifting refers in part to the unpopular higher taxes that will need to be assessed by the Democrats and  Republican elected between 2010-2018…

The current leadership in Washington will be gone to the heap of history by the time the hard, thankless work begins — but if the plan fails to lower health costs and federal deficits, no one ought to be surprised if the current political leadership would blame those who would be settled with making the plan work… And if the plan were made “to work” by a possible new Democratic or Republican leadership,
the current corp would claim the credit.

In 10 years the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns (whether successfully or not) presumably will be over or be greatly downsized and their expenditures will be lessened… But will health costs have been reduced in comparison to their share of GDP, while the size of government will have grown so much? Could the needed changes have been done incrementally over the course of 10 years without the current national angst,  without the huge growth of government and without settling the nation’s children and grandchildren with the debt?

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Health care reform, while needed, is not the ultimate goal of this administration. It is merely a brick in building a more intrusive and controlling government. The tactics here are similar to those used by environmentalists just get a foothold and build on that. An example is the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). It started as a noble act, but now it’s clear that the real prize is in shutting down the entire coastline for recreation, i.e., fishing. It spreads like a cancer and we quickly find ourselves asking, “how come I didn’t see it coming,” in the mean time lots of damage has been done.

    • In a (proverbial) nutshell, your comment “… building a more intrusive and controlling government.” could reasonably be interpreted as being what the current Administration and the controlling party in Congress seek to do… Clearly, there are two main views of what role govenment ought to play in people’s iives, and if the role exemplified in the quote above wins out at the ballot box in November, America will be changed, if not forever, at least for some years to come.

  2. I believe conflicting views over the national health bill would be lessened greatly if every american, including all elected officials, lived under the unbrella of national health policies. Our elite politicians have entirely different health care policies. How come the general american public doesn’t qualigy for the same health insurance that is provided this “elite” group of employees?

    • You make a notable observation…
      Some major national politicians have stated that the new health care law will enable all Americans from top to bottom to benefit from the same plan that “they” have… The nicest thing that can be said about the assertion is that it is a gross misrepresentation.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: