Universal health care will increase debt
Wes Heinkel
Issue date: 4/2/08 Section: Opinion
I was sitting in a chair, eating honey- roasted peanuts and drinking a tall, cool Natural Light with Marty McFly and Dr. Emmit Brown discussing the future of this great country in light of the upcoming presidential elections.
Will the Democrats fight like schoolchildren to get on the merry-go-round ride that will only leave them dazed and confused, paving the way for hero John McCain (and, yes, he is a hero) to take the Oval Office?
That was the question that sparked the debate and led my mind to even more important philosophical questions, most notably those of fiscal discipline, public debt, deficits and where does or should our government stand on these issues?
As the Democrats' talking points consistently bring up the apparently noble idea (mind my cynicism) of universal health care in light of our current crisis - the fact that this country's national debt is at an astounding $9 trillion - we must ask ourselves if the government should take on more responsibility and if it is even capable.
For shock and awe value, I feel obligated to write this number out in digits, so prepare yourself - the U.S. is $9,391,107,000,846 in debt. Now that damn thing has its own gravitational pull and the sun is getting a little too close for comfort. Apparently Al Gore was right - it is getting hotter.
So here is my point. The Republican Party has fundamentally lost its way by swapping fiscal discipline for power and votes. Democrats, too, believe in these massive government bureaucracies, government intervention, welfare benefits and all the other handouts our society craves. We should ask ourselves what is being done with our money and do we really want this American government entity to grow? Can we trust this body that clearly has lost all sense of fiscal responsibility to run an American universal health care system? I think not.
Beyond that, have we forgotten the only true way to drive down prices is to let the service or commodities compete in an open, low-tax environment where entrepreneurs "instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano"? The fact is, right now the United States has the best doctors, best equipment and best care in the world, and if we switch to a single-payer government system, you can kiss that fact goodbye.
Will the Democrats fight like schoolchildren to get on the merry-go-round ride that will only leave them dazed and confused, paving the way for hero John McCain (and, yes, he is a hero) to take the Oval Office?
That was the question that sparked the debate and led my mind to even more important philosophical questions, most notably those of fiscal discipline, public debt, deficits and where does or should our government stand on these issues?
As the Democrats' talking points consistently bring up the apparently noble idea (mind my cynicism) of universal health care in light of our current crisis - the fact that this country's national debt is at an astounding $9 trillion - we must ask ourselves if the government should take on more responsibility and if it is even capable.
For shock and awe value, I feel obligated to write this number out in digits, so prepare yourself - the U.S. is $9,391,107,000,846 in debt. Now that damn thing has its own gravitational pull and the sun is getting a little too close for comfort. Apparently Al Gore was right - it is getting hotter.
So here is my point. The Republican Party has fundamentally lost its way by swapping fiscal discipline for power and votes. Democrats, too, believe in these massive government bureaucracies, government intervention, welfare benefits and all the other handouts our society craves. We should ask ourselves what is being done with our money and do we really want this American government entity to grow? Can we trust this body that clearly has lost all sense of fiscal responsibility to run an American universal health care system? I think not.
Beyond that, have we forgotten the only true way to drive down prices is to let the service or commodities compete in an open, low-tax environment where entrepreneurs "instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano"? The fact is, right now the United States has the best doctors, best equipment and best care in the world, and if we switch to a single-payer government system, you can kiss that fact goodbye.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Chad
posted 4/02/08 @ 11:11 AM CST
Wes - Universal healthcare systems are covered by an increase in tax revenue from a countries citizens. While I agree that the US' level of debt is too high, is cutting off many of the nation's people from what should be a universal right in a country as wealthy as the US less important that curtailing that debt? I should hope that everyone would agree not. (Continued…)
David
posted 4/12/08 @ 4:00 PM CST
Universal Healthcare just is not the answer...as seen in the movie,Sicko, supposedly Cuba's Healthcare system is top-notch, but then why are all the Americans running there, and all the Cubans are fleeing?
Chad
posted 4/14/08 @ 8:19 AM CST
It's not the health-care the Cubans are fleeing from... And you probably shouldn't take your views on any topic solely from a Michael Moore film. While it did much to promote universal healthcare, Sicko wasn't without its problems as a factual source. (Continued…)
Kasey
posted 5/10/08 @ 5:08 PM CST
Universal healthcare is such a horrible idea. My gosh just cause the word free is in there doesn't mean its the answer to a problem. I get really tired of people complaining asking for things form the government. (Continued…)
Post a Comment