Where To Begin - Heath Care Reform?

This is my maiden voyage blogging. And already I have probably managed to either offend someone ('maiden' = sexist?) or lost a bunch of people ('maiden voyage' = archaic?). Too bad. The first 'offense' is commonsensically nothing more than nonsensical political correctness, and the second is ignorance which all of us share at some point (and can be remedied?).

My intention here is to challenge or oppose policies and proposals and even ways of thinking that I (one person) believe are illogical, detrimental or downright destructive and to ask questions that do not seem to attract the attention of the venerable fourth estate. Or is the press purposefully silent?

Enough! Let's get something done.

In the news lately is the Obama health care proposal. Aside from the questionable value of nationalizing private businesses, I am struck by how the proposal is promoted; i.e., we are going to realize a $2 billion savings (cost avoidance?) over ten years. Are we thinking; is our smell test working? Savings over 10 Years. Whenever the government or a politician tells us that something is going to cost less over pick-a-number years, we are probably being had. Why? Read on.

What are the politicos doing or not doing?

1. They are not telling you that the savings, here and now while you are listening and watching, is virtually nothing. If the savings were significant, they would be touting that. And don't buy the line: This is the start-up year and savings will, of course, be lower. Think: Yes, Mr. Politician, you give me a dollar now, later you'll give me millions. Right!


2. They know there are so many variables that an easy explanation as to why the savings was not realized will be easily had. The story goes: If the price of oil just had not risen, our savings would have been had. Sometimes the excuses are valid, but over the years the multiplicity of them will only confound the analysis and cover the rascality. Ten years is along time, and some excuse will surely happen along to cover the inconvenient truth.


3. When the period needed to realize the savings exceeds the proponents' terms of office, they are, of course, not accountable and their successors will say it didn't happen on my watch (wasn't my program). Heads I win; tails you lose.


4. Oh, and the $2 trillion, is it in today's dollars or inflated dollars?

Any anyway what is $2 trillion over ten years? $200 billion per year, tidy sums, but against what base? We need to know that also. In other words, what percentage of spending is being avoided? In the instance of Mr. Obama's health care proposal, there may be good answers to some or all of these questions. The problem is that we may be buying (or being force-fed) a pig in a poke.

Without knowing more, how can we possibly support changing something as vast and important as the health care system? Remember that a generation ago, we rejected Hilary Care. We weren't buying that oinker.

Obama is President. In him we have a person with no real experience as the leader of anything significant or being responsible for anything important. He is changing so much with so little foundation of experience. And we are the ones who will be affected. Now is that common sense? I would be interested in knowing?