House Democrats plan to fund the broadest U.S. health-care expansion in four decades by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, imposing a surtax of 5.4 percent on couples with more than $1 million in income.
The legislation unveiled yesterday would place additional taxes on households with more than $350,000 a year in income and calls for further increases if the measure doesn’t hit a target for cost savings. The provisions are intended to raise $544 billion over 10 years.
OK. Then I read this:
Lawmakers are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to determine how much the bill will cost. The nonpartisan agency said in a partial and preliminary analysis that the plan would run to more than $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce the number of uninsured by roughly 37 million.
Hmm. Let me make this easier. Though, I doubt it's necessary.
The provisions are intended to raise $544 billion over 10 years.
. . . the plan would run to more than $1 trillion over 10 years
Now, I'm no mathematician, but 544 billion sounds like roughly half of a trillion, no? And, if that's the case . . . again, I'm no genius here . . . won't the government fall a tad short of funding?
I haven't blogged about the Obamacare issue in that it just makes me mad. The above figures show you why. It's moronic. What people don't seem to understand is that the government system won't really save money or cut costs. In fact, the system does NOTHING to actually address the costs of healthcare. It's simply about providing coverage. Health insurance. How does that control industry costs? It doesn't.
I like reading the argument that in spite of having the best healthcare in the world we Americans have the shortest life expectancy. This is really disingenuous. Yes, with free healthcare coverage, more people could end up seeing the doctor and through routine examinations find something for which they can be treated . . . which could ultimately extend or save their life. I understand that. But, even with coverage, there's no guarantee people will see a doctor. Or, subscribe to whatever is necessary to treat their condition. I'm all for preventative care. I practice it. But, you cannot make the connection between having healthcare coverage available and life expectancy. There are other factors at play, including compliance. But also life style, heredity, and diet. We're quite a mixed bag here in America. Other countries are by far more culture and race specific. That factors in to things, as well.
What some of these articles don't tell you is that given most conditions, living in and being treated in America offers you the best chances of survival and extended life. So, should you develop cancer, you're going to want to be treated here.
I admit, costs are a problem. You don't have the best hospitals and doctors and access in the world without a price tag on it. But, simply providing everyone with insurance coverage isn't the answer. Betters ways to start would be to shorten the time it takes for generics to hit the market. Ban TV advertising of drugs. Regulate the industry in the area of selling prices. A flat rate system. Make the market work through competition . . . advertising costs of doctor visits, hospital stays, etc. Limit or regulate the public holdings. I'd go as far as to eliminate public offerings all together. We've come to a point where I don't think it's needed.
The problem is, by not actually addressing healthcare costs, and creating a situation in which the market will likely be flooded by demand, costs will go up. Which means the costs of the coverage will go up. Which means whatever and whoever the government is taxing now won't be enough. So, does the 5% become 10%? Or does the $350,000 a year earner become a $100,000 a year earner that will be taxed?
Like the energy issue, the government insists on doing things backwards. Thus, retardedly.
Unfortunately, there's no cure for that.
So, right after posting this I go to Drudge and find this article.
Here are some interesting graphs:
Elmendorf said that CBO has not completed its evaluation of the House plan, but what it has seen so far does not represent “the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.”
When asked what could be done to help “bend the curve” of health care costs over time, Elmendorf pointed out that most health experts believe the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance is an area that could help reduce costs. Many experts say the exclusion encourages high health care spending since it shields workers from the cost of their coverage.
Then, there's an interesting article that exposes in the bill a provision that would outlaw individual insurance coverage. Read it here.
Again. No cure for this kind of stupidity. We need to get them out of office.