My August 2002 poll asked how much sacrifice we as
taxpayers are willing to make to get something that many
of us want: health care for all. I have listed answers
ranging from 0 to 10 percent. My point is that the
people should communicate to the government what
services they want and what they are willing to pay for
them.
I stole this concept from Wes, a classmate at the
University of California at Irvine. He lamented
that the government first tells us on California ballot
initiatives how much they will spend on a program (like
the construction of freeways), then asks us to respond
YES or NO. He suggested that the people should be
allowed to respond the extent of their interest in a
project. (Wes, if you happen to be reading this,
e-mail me a line!)
The government should conduct a referendum like this
and apply the results to its policy. In this case,
the government would raise taxes by the aggregate result
of 5.75% (see Polls - August).
If the resulting revenue did not cover all uninsured
taxpayers, it should then prioritize them by their
inability to secure their own health insurance, with
those unable to secure, whether for monetary reasons or
because of pre-existing illnesses, grouped first.
To implement the plan, the government should use the
revenues to establish a Federal Division of Health
Insurance within the Department of Health and Human
Services. It would be mandated to cover those in
the priority groups, regardless of their health
condition. Premiums would be assessed by flat
percentage of their income levels.
Some may argue that the new health care system would
involve too much government. Others might say we
should look to the private sector to cover the
uninsured. I disagree for the following reasons:
First, the government can mandate coverage of those
who get turned away by private companies. The
private sector can and does refuse people with certain
illnesses on the grounds that they are unprofitable
patients.
Second, the government is not out to make a
profit. Its responsibility is to provide services
at a reasonable cost.
Third, the government has a duty to help the
needy. People who have no health insurance through
no fault of their own fit into this category.
Balancing the Budget
As a candidate, Ronald Reagan said
he would cut taxes, raise defense spending and balance
the budget.
After a large tax break in 1981, his first year
in office, and a steady increase in spending,
particularly in defense, the record at the end of
Reagan’s two terms showed no balanced budgets and a
tripling in the national debt.
If we’re fooled once, shame on
them.
President George W. Bush cut taxes in his
first year in office.
He has asked Congress for large sums of money on
defense, security and other matters.
The result: at the end of Fiscal Year 2002, the
first full year of Bush policies, the budget shows a
deficit of $165 billion.
If we’re fooled twice, shame on
us.
Voters should not be fooled by
President Bush’s recent assertion that his
Administration could balance the budget with tax cuts
and “hold[ing] the line on spending” other than
defense and homeland security.
All one need do is look at the budget, courtesy
of the National Debt Awareness Center (see chart below):
