The Associated Press issued a news release concerning the just-released non-partisan report from the the Health and Human Services Department.
It is as was feared by those people fighting for fiscal sanity.
The one point it did validate for the Administration, Senate and House is that 95 percent of all Main Street USA will be covered. (Whether one elects to have coverage or not.) The Health Care Rights Act (not the real name of the legislation) extends coverage to 34 million more people.
As pointed out earlier, however, 10 million of those people can afford insurance now but have elected, for whatever reasons, not to carry any. Seems to this Main Streeter that extending coverage to these people is simply a waste of taxpayer dollars and a violation of individual rights as, starting in 2014, you, dear citizen, will have not choice in the matter.
If you do not obtain insurance coverage yourself, the IRS will be standing at your door. With a fine (read tax).
The report points out that costs will not go down, as was heavily touted by supporters (especially those like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who porked the bill to garner votes). They will increase.
Overall health care costs, per the report, will increase by $311 Billion in the next decade.
Some are quick to point out that the increase is a fraction of a percentage point of total health care spending during that time.
Is that supposed to console Americans, when each and every day our elected (to serve the people) representatives are spending this country into oblivion?
The Affordable Care Act (the legal name of the wretched bill) is NOT affordable at all.
The AP article, in one paragraph, stated that the US spends $2.5 Trillion a year on health care. In the very next paragraph it states that "total health care spending during the decade (ie 2010-2019) is estimated to surpass $35 Trillion."
Is this the New Math about which people complain? Or, perhaps, Creative Accounting?
As when this person divides $35 Trillion by 10 (years in a decade) the answer comes up $3.5 Trillion, not $2.5 Trillion as presented in the earlier paragraph.
That is a HUGE difference.
Why is it that for legislation of this economic magnitude this report could not have been done prior to voting it into law?
America, now more than ever, needs fiscal leadership. (And not the kind that decides that a Value Added Tax or Consumption Taxes will solve the problem while they enjoy the big salary and expense account, free flights and lush benefits of representing the American People.)
Let us hope and pray that fiscally sound men and women can avert financial disaster while not, at the same time, continue to overbruden the middle class.
As stated in earlier blogs, the Congressional Special Interest Group (employing the art and science of buying votes for questionable legislation) is far worse, and, more than likely, costs the taxpayers of this great nation far more than any other form of SIG lobbying that exists.
Over For now.
Main Street One
No comments:
Post a Comment