The Health Care Investment
All of the Congresspeople fighting amongst themselves over Obamacare should probably step back and really think about what they’re doing. Both sides agree that, with skyrocketing health care and health insurance costs, the system is broken. Incredibly, only one side believes that reform is called for to fix the problem.
Currently, we have a system where many people don’t have health insurance or are under-insured with the policies they have and therefore are not able to cover all of their health care bills. The health care industry makes up for the payment shortage with aid from the government and/or charging more overhead to the rest of us who do have good coverage. The President has proposed an ambitious — some might say courageous, depending what side of the aisle you’re on — plan to overhaul health care costs, health insurance costs, and make health coverage available to all Americans. The main opposition against the plan, aside from the philosophical argument that such a plan would plunge us into a socialist society, is the cost to future generations.
Interestingly, this is always the argument anyone in Congress will resort to using when it’s an idea that they believe is no good. Democrats largely resisted funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the deficit it would create on the budget. No matter, it was a great idea to the Republican majority and so the wars came to pass. Now Democrats believe they have a great idea which will save lives in the long run, but because the cost will add too much to the deficit the Republicans think it’s a lousy idea.
So where were these Republicans nearly ten years ago when the wars were voted on? They were right where they are now — sitting in Congress with their fingers jammed into their ears, so they cannot hear the arguments of reason for the deficit (then) or health care (now).
The Democrats should argue that the cost is actually an investment in America. It is an investment in America’s health as surely as the recent unemployment extension (opposed by guess who) was an investment in the future of the American work force. This is the way I see it. Any person who has good consistent health care should by all rights be a healthier person. A healthier person should by all rights be a better (i.e., more productive) worker. Higher productivity should by all rights lead to more products and services being sold. This should result in higher revenues, which can either be reinvested in more goods and services or in the workers themselves. All this should generate more government revenue — without, please take note Republicans, an appreciable tax increase — which could be used to pay down the deficit which may or may not have been caused by the investment in America’s health care.
This thinking may be a bit too convoluted for some political philosophies, but it works for me!
(Thank you for reading. Please remember political stubbornness may not be recognized as a pre-existing condition!)
Currently, we have a system where many people don’t have health insurance or are under-insured with the policies they have and therefore are not able to cover all of their health care bills. The health care industry makes up for the payment shortage with aid from the government and/or charging more overhead to the rest of us who do have good coverage. The President has proposed an ambitious — some might say courageous, depending what side of the aisle you’re on — plan to overhaul health care costs, health insurance costs, and make health coverage available to all Americans. The main opposition against the plan, aside from the philosophical argument that such a plan would plunge us into a socialist society, is the cost to future generations.
Interestingly, this is always the argument anyone in Congress will resort to using when it’s an idea that they believe is no good. Democrats largely resisted funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the deficit it would create on the budget. No matter, it was a great idea to the Republican majority and so the wars came to pass. Now Democrats believe they have a great idea which will save lives in the long run, but because the cost will add too much to the deficit the Republicans think it’s a lousy idea.
So where were these Republicans nearly ten years ago when the wars were voted on? They were right where they are now — sitting in Congress with their fingers jammed into their ears, so they cannot hear the arguments of reason for the deficit (then) or health care (now).
The Democrats should argue that the cost is actually an investment in America. It is an investment in America’s health as surely as the recent unemployment extension (opposed by guess who) was an investment in the future of the American work force. This is the way I see it. Any person who has good consistent health care should by all rights be a healthier person. A healthier person should by all rights be a better (i.e., more productive) worker. Higher productivity should by all rights lead to more products and services being sold. This should result in higher revenues, which can either be reinvested in more goods and services or in the workers themselves. All this should generate more government revenue — without, please take note Republicans, an appreciable tax increase — which could be used to pay down the deficit which may or may not have been caused by the investment in America’s health care.
This thinking may be a bit too convoluted for some political philosophies, but it works for me!
(Thank you for reading. Please remember political stubbornness may not be recognized as a pre-existing condition!)
posted by todd gunther | 6:46 AM
1 Comments:
I think everyone should consider investing in home health care
Post a Comment
<< Home