Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 8/3/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats

Conservatives' selective concern about deficit spending

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (14 fans)   --

opednews.com

Conservatives' selective concern about deficit spending

Program Cost Conservative response
War in Iraq $3 trillion "No problem!"
Bush tax cuts for the rich $3.9 trillion "No problem!"
Bush bailouts $9 - $24 trillion "No problem!"
"Public option" health care$1 trillion "It's not revenue neutral!"
Single payer health careWould save money, improve care "It's socialism!"

"The total value of the bailouts undertaken by the federal government in 2008 now exceeds the combined cost of every major war the United States has ever engaged in, according to a comparison of war costs calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the value of the bailouts as calculated by Bloomberg News or Bianco Research" (2008) source

The bailouts were needed to recover from the crisis caused by reckless deregulation of banks and Wall Street.

A "health care bailout" is now needed to recover from the profiteering of the corrupt, under-regulated health care industry. But unlike the banking bailout, the health care bailout can save America money. Single-payer would lower costs, thanks to reduced overheads, simplified paperwork, less profiteering, and the ability of a government-run system to negotiate lower prices.

We already pay about 60% of health care costs through taxes ("Indeed, our tax-financed costs exceed total costs in every nation except Switzerland." source). But instead of getting the health care we deserve, our taxes fund the profits of private insurance companies. Don't allow Congress to funnel your tax dollars to corrupt corporate campaign donors. Demand single-payer health care and cut out the middleman.

Note 1: A weak "public option" would be no improvement at all, since it is likely to merely use taxes to fund private insurance companies, and since only single-payer (or a strong public option) will be able to control costs. Don't let Congress settle on a weak public option that gives only the illusion of health care reform.

Note 2: I am not suggesting socialized medicine here: health-care would still be privately delivered.

References

Paying for National Health Insurance -- and Not Getting It
Bailout Cost Exceeds All American Wars
Bailout Costs Could Reach $24 Trillion
Cost Of Bailout Hits $8.5 Trillion
Supply Side Tax Cuts Failed to Deliver Jobs and Growth Between 2001 and 2007
Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes
PDA Articles about Healthcare
Physicians for a National Health Program

 

http://waliberals.org

DFA organizer, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, writer, and programmer. My op-ed pieces have appeared in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and elsewhere. See http://WALiberals.org and http://TruthSite.org for my writing, my (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments