If government direction of healthcare payment (which is what is being discussed by our leaders right now, it's not healthcare reform, it's healthcare payment "reform") is so important that this bill has to be passed NOW, why do the benefits of the bill not kick in for 3 or 4 years? Is it because it will take that long to assemble and set in motion the massive government bureaucracy that this plan will necessitate? This sounds like a reasonable explanation, right?
So, if we're waiting for the benefits for 3 or 4 years, why do the tax increases start right away? Where do those first years of taxes go? Obviously not to any benefits!
Various officials have pointed out that over the first 10 years after its enactment, "healthcare reform" will be either budget-neutral (pay for itself) or budget beneficial (take in more than it pays out). I'll ignore the fact that sometimes (and by sometime I mean almost every time) the government underestimates how much something will cost and pays more than it had reckoned. I still struggle to understand how it makes sense to pay for something for 10 years and benefit from it for 6 or 7.
Once the benefits are in place, and millions rely on the government to pay for their healthcare, there will be a problem. At the end of the first 10 years, the bottom line for the program will theoretically be $0. Benefits will have been being received for 6 or 7 years on 10 years of payments. Going into the second decade, the program will only be 60 or 70 percent funded unless some changes are made, which means billions of dollars a year will have to come from other places in the federal budget to make up the deficit. This means either reduction in services other than healthcare provided by the federal government, or an increase in federal taxes paid.
The other option is that changes are made to healthcare paid for by the government. I see 4 options. 1) 3 or 4 years out of every decade, no payments are made for healthcare. This sounds ridiculous, but that is what the government is doing for the first decade of the program. 2) Benefits are reduced. I hesitate to say the government will ration care, because everyone already has their care rationed. If someone has private insurance, there are certain things their insurer will not pay for. If a person pays out of pocket for all of their care, they self-ration. I guess the correct way to say it is that the government will ration care more strictly. 3) Payments will be reduced for services provided. This means that doctors will be paid less for providing the same services. If doctors cannot earn as much, will as many people want to become doctors? I doubt it. This could lead to a shortage of doctors, and long waits for appointments, 4) Taxes instituted by the "healthcare reform" program are increased.
I don't foresee option 1 ever happening. I think the most likely scenario is a combination of the other 3 options.
Do you really want to trust the government that cannot run your retirement plan with also running your health insurance plan?
