The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
It has been estimated 50 million Americans do not have health insurance. Presumably, the vast majority can’t afford it. The U.S. Congress’s solution is to fine each of these people $1,000.
(Next, we can fine each homeless person $1,000 for not paying rent.)
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the fines will raise $36 billion over 10 years. Do the math. That $36 billion requires 36 million people to remain uninsured. In short, the government plan requires the program to fail!
The government claims it would provide subsidies for poor and “some” middle-class families. That will require complex definitions for “poor,” remembering how cost of living varies markedly around the country. A Manhattan resident earning $30 thousand might be poor, while half that income might do very nicely in a rural town. Then there is the question of how to count dependents – children and adults.
(Next, we can fine each starving person for not buying enough food.)
And if families are forced to spend money on health insurance, will they be precluded from sending their kids to college or even allowing them to complete high school? Ah, that pesky law of unintended consequences.
(Next we can fine each jobless person for not working.)
Part of the plan also includes cutting costs by reducing payments to hospitals. Of course, this would require hospitals to find ways to save money. They can cut nursing staff and equipment, employ fewer doctors and maintenance people and serve cheaper food. And no need to clean the rooms every day. Now that should improve health care.
If the government can subsidize the poor and “some” middle-class, why not merely subsidize them and forget about the ridiculous tax on poverty and on hospitals? This all is a perfect example of why the government is excellent at supplying money, but truly terrible at managing.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com