Ok, I admit that it is a poor play on words,but I think you can guess what the topic is,health care.We won't decide whether or not if Health care is the right thing or not. The question is whether or not the assumptions that health care is based on is valid and logical. However before we begin or examination of health care, I want to apologize for yesterdays post. Rather than a examination of education it was more of a rant,and that is not what this blog is about.Its just that when it comes to education in this country,my logic goes out the window and becomes irrational and yes, I will admit somewhat on the angry side.I assure you that it will not happen in the future, the reason is that education is the only subject I am that passionate about.
Now whether or not the health care law will operate and cost as advertise depends entirely on the question of assumptions it is based on is valid or not.Now whether or not the law in question is moral or proper, I leave that to the reader to decide for themselves.I have my opinion which I believe is correct but I also admit I could be completely wrong.However what I believe or don't believe is not and should not be focus of this post.Now that has been said, lets begin our examination of the subject at hand.
The basic assumption that the health care law is based on is as follows; That health care should be extended as far as coverage is concern to the estimated 30 to 40 million individuals who do not have health care insurance.The second part of the operating assumption is that this coverage can be extended to these individuals and save money not only in the short run but also over ten and twenty years.So is this assumption correct or not?
I believe that everyone in the country would agree that all citizens should have access to quality health care. After all life is the first thing that is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Remember Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.Life depends on health and health truely depends on access to quality health care. So the first part of the assumpation seems to be true without a shadow of a doubt.Agreed. Now to the second part of the assumption. That one can insure 30 to 40 million more individuals, and save money over the next 10 to twenty years.
On the face of it,it seems ridiculous, after all one can point to ones own life and see that if you have to care for another it's going to cost you more.Even if you cut back on everything else, another mouth to feed, clothed,and shelther is going to cost more.So it seems,that it would be impossible to do in health care.Is it?Lets look at just how they accomplished it. They did it with a combination of cuts to medicare, taxes on medical services, devices and one little advertised selight of hand. Just what is it, good question.Here's the answer, For the first few years, the federal government will pay 100% of the cost of all new individuals that are added to the state's medicaid rolls. After the first few years the federal government will only cover about 30 to 40% percent of the costs, the state will have to cover the rest.Saving 60to 70% of the total cost to insuring the additional 30 to 40 million is quite a bit of money.Add to this the 250 billion over ten years for the cost of covering the reductions to doctors that the law requires, is another chunck of change.Now are the assumptions that use these gimmicks valid. You decide. Can you cover 30 to 40 million more people and still save money, I have my opinion, but the real question is what is yours.