I have been avoiding commenting on this thread, as for the Outpost it has been the most overtly political ever, and I find the "reform" bill - whatever the heck is in it - to be horrendous on pretty much every level. But lowend1's post captures a sentiment of mine that tends to guide my political thought process and how I vote and donate my time and money: the guys who started this country were a heck of a lot brighter, better educated and far more interested in the goals and limits of good government and insuring liberty while understanding life is risk, than most of the people elected to congress over the last hundred years. The "reform" is not related to those ideals at all. It has nothing to do with health care whatsoever. Or what people consider to be a problem of healthcare in the US - essentially costs. Any suggestions that did not involve single payer as an ultimate goal were shut out. It is / was a bizzare power grab of a major part of the economy. And done in a way that it promisses much without anyone being able to understand how it was brokered, how it can possibly not lead to single payer (socialized) medical,and how much it will cost. All without the much promissed open debate or coverage on CSPAN.
By making the government responsible for paying the costs of healthcare of 30 million - for a start - Americans, we are committing to an orgy of deficit spending. And that is deficit spending this government cannot sustain. Someone is going to have to pay for it, and pay it off. That is going to be impossible to do without tax hikes, and not just letting the Bush tax cuts - which boosted the economy and revenues just like it did for Kennedy and Reagan - expire. They will go up higher. And actually, in the US the more you make the more you pay it all. Considering the disproportionate amount of the federal taxes paid by the upper income brackets (google it), there can only be so much more that can be imposed before it retards investment and economic functionality. The top rates under Carter, when the Keynseian freak out was downright restrained compared to the current mess, were approaching 80%. If that is good policy, then why isn't anyone demanding that? What is a good tax level? Just more, whatever that is? That would fit in with Pelosi's demand that the bill be passed, and then we will see what is in it. Great. If the Bush tax cuts lead to a problem paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, what with that being a whopping less that 5% of federal spending, lets just go back to a good rate, like the Carter administration. No one is suggesting that because they know there is a balance to taxing, and revenues, and that is and was disasterous. Uncapped entitlement payments are killing our government. So what we are going to see, in the name of reform, is what all those countries with great health care ( the places we have been getting our doctors from, and patients who don't feel like being on waiting lists) have, which is a GST. The lower income levels, the people who would in theory benefit from health insurance "reform" don't pay taxes. And they will. Apparently a key component of the the "reform" bill requires massive hiring of IRS agents, who will be new dependents on the federal government, and that the government will nationalize student loans. Hey, at least it is a start for health care "reform!" Fabulous.
I take exception to the concept that people who disagree with the growth of government social spending and intrusion into the market place are somehow expecting all these services without paying for it. I don't, but I also don't want the government to do all the crap that it has gotten involved in over the last 50 years or so, and been successful at none of it. Social spending does not work, and is never capped. We have a social security administration that is bankrupt every few years, that was modelled on Mussolini's by an admiring FDR, and designed to provide for the retirement needs of people with a life expectancy of a year or so beyond 65. It pays an average return of less than 1.5%. I would like to opt out, and would love to have put my fica taxes in a basic saving account at my local bank. I would be doing a hell of a lot better than what I will get, and they have spend all of it already anyway, years ago. This is bad policy. Again.
I too find embarrassing fault with the signs demanding protection of medicair while stopping single payer. It is a level of stupidity that one can find at any rally, left or right. However I do also disagree that destitute or uninsurable people are best cared for by the federal government, or a number of the issues listed, including organized crime which was created in the US by bad federal law. Bad law is bad law. This is bad law. I suspect parts of it will not ever be removed, but I suspect parts of it will, and there will be constitutionality issues for years. For that, I appreciate there being no compromise. When bad laws are enacted via sub-standard manoevers, in violation of the constitional intent, there should be no compromise. I applaud fiscal responsibility. I deplore government growing, power grabbing social spending.
Now I write all this with a sense of angst, as I tend to voice a balance of opinion that can lead to argument over debate. But I must cap all of this by also pointing out that while I love wealth and the freedom of the persuit of it, I am deeply concerned - to some degree more than I am over the "reform" - with the shadowy role of hedge funds that billionaires use to drive down/destroy currencies. We are witnessing that now with the euro. All of this federal bloating will be a happy accident if we ALL start to experience currency collapse. I am hearing that whispered more often than ever among my financial buddies. All your Goldline commercials won't mean jack if that happens. So, just remember to vote, and buy that cool bass while you can.
