What Are You Willing to Pay for What You Get?

I was startled when it was reported on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" that 51 percent of the population is in favor of national health insurance. Wow.
Yes, I know Canada does a good job. That doesn't mean I think our much larger, more populous country with all its pharmaceutical companies, profitable health insurance companies and lobbyists can do the same.

When Hillary Clinton announced she was for national health insurance, one critic, no, I don't know who, and that's dangerous. But he opined it would enlarge the federal government about four-fold, and that sounds like a reasonable enstimate.

And then yesterday the report came out that the only way Social Security can continue solvency is to cut benefits while increasing spending. Allen Greenspan was saying virtually the same thing last week as he talked about his book, and that the Congress is ignoring needed changes when baby boomers are coming into retirement with a vengence.

A charitable hospital district in the area estimated covering routine care beyond emergency care for indigent patients with no insurance for just their county could boost expenses in one year by 40 million dollars.

Everyone is posturing for votes. The truth is barely skimmed in the media, it's more just quoting who has the best sound bite. It is all about the emotion and popularity and who's winning. I am so tired of this. It didn't used to be such work just to find out the facts. Maybe I had more energy, but I don't think so. Not only is Congress mostly operating as a bunch of sugar daddies (or mommas), journalism does an increasingly poor job of covering it.

Oh, yeah, there's a lot that needs to be improved in health care. I just have heard nothing that makes me think nationalizing it would help. Medical care on the par with say, public housing would not make me happy, I think. Ask vets about the VA Administration. Extremely spotty record.

Sigh. It's seems every time I pick a cause, it's defeated, But I hope not, or planners at least come up first with something coherent and address the aging population and the illegal population problems along with the rest of the population.

Both House and Senate will approve a bill this week increasing health insurance benefits for children. Bush has already said he will veto it and both parties know they don't have the votes to overcome a veto. So this seems like a gesture signifying nothing. Bush is reported to have said he will veto because the bill would cover children whose families already have private insurance. How do I find out if this is true? Oh, and they say they would pay for this by increasing cigarette tax again, when everyone piously prays the higher taxes will encourage people to stop smoking. Gee, what if it does? Then what?

I don't like the way my country is being run, and I don't like the choices that are being made, and God help me, there don't seem to be any alternatives.National Health Insurance won't give us more choices. It will give us less. There are too few already.