Fixing Healthcare

One of the writers for Little Green Footballs has pulled together a list of questions that need to be answered prior to any vote on so called healthcare "reform." Here's the link. It is a great, interactive resource.

I still go back to a more fundamental approach, as I posted here earlier. Simply put, let's first agree on what the "problem" is before we agree on new legislation. I would take it a step further. Given the sky-rocketing costs of unfunded entitlements, how about we fix those FIRST. Then we can explore a new entitlement?

This from Investor's Business Daily:

It's increasingly obvious that Congress and the president (regardless of the party in power) will deal with the political stink bomb of an aging society only if forced. And the most plausible means of compulsion would be for Social Security and Medicare to go bankrupt: trust funds run dry; promised benefits exceed dedicated payroll taxes. The sooner this happens, the better.

That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: Over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are converted to "today's dollars.")

The Medicare actuaries then note what happens once the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance program are depleted: "No provision exists under current law to address the projected (Medicare) and (Social Security) financial imbalances. Once assets are exhausted, expenditures cannot be made except to the extent covered by ongoing tax receipts." Translation: Benefits would fall.

Social Security checks would shrink; some Medicare bills wouldn't be paid in full — and the shortfalls would progressively worsen. Retirees would scream. Hospitals might shut. No president or Congress would abide the outcry. Even the threat of imminent bankruptcy would rouse them to action. But restoring the programs' solvency would confront Congress and the White House with fundamental questions.

I know, I should stop making sense. Why bother fixing an existing problem, when we can create a new budget buster! This is the same logic that Pete Stark uses, glaringly illustrated here, that "the more you are in debt, the wealthier you are!" Think how practical this knowledge is in real life:

• The more you drink, the soberer you get!
• The more you read, the dumber you become!
• The more sex you have, the less chance you have of becoming pregnant!
• The more houses that are foreclosed, the richer the homeowners are!

You get the point, shame lefty statists don't...or can't.