This is my first blog entry, and probably far too ambitious an undertaking for the maiden voyage.  Hence the "Round 1" qualifier at the end - meaning, there will be more entries on this topic if the Clinton alchemy machine can turn her leaden 11 losses in a row to Barack into gold tomorrow and again in Pennsylvania, the convention, etc.

 

Health care for all...sounds great.  Especially in this day and age of everything being about me.  But I have yet to hear any explanation, much less any meaningful discussion from any of the putative candidates, about the upcoming Medicare funding debacle (to be followed by Social Security).  It's a pretty simple issue in my mind:  you cannot continue to take in less than you pay out and remain solvent.  Medicare is broken, and it doesn't really look like any of our so-called leaders, on either side of the aisle, are going to be leaders and call a spade a spade.  Social Security is broken as well, it's just going to take a little longer before the funding mechanisms lock up.  At this point it seems like criminal negligence to not commence any meaningful discussion, beyond promising the voting seniors that they won't lose benefits if you vote for [insert any candidate's name her].

 

Given the unsuccessful operation of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, why would Hillary possibly think that government is the best suited to provide national healthcare?  Better yet, why would anyone think that government is responsible for providing healthcare to all? 

 

Many American households today are seeing incomes in excess of $100k.  Check out Lou Dobbs nonsensical rantings about the demise of the "Middle Class" and the Washington Post response (5 Myths of the Poor Middle Class, 12/23/07) article debunking Dobbs and many Democrats.  Specifically, there has not been an increase in the impoverished (defined as household income below $35k), but there has been an increase in households with income > $100k.  Accepting that more households are moving out of the middle class because of more income, why are there more children without health insurance?  Because many of those households CHOOSE TO NOT BUY HEALTH INSURANCE is the only logical conclusion.  Arguments that "its too expensive" ignore that many of those households have multiple cars, multiple plasma tvs, DVDs, PS3s, yadi yadi yada.  It's a choice to allocate dollars to other purposes and ignoring the potential catastrophic consequences economically that could occur - or otherwise known as "gaming" the system.

 

This country cannot afford to meet its entitlement obligations as they stand.  Medicare and Social Security are going to require employer and employee tax increases (which are of course recessionary) and will ultimately require needs-based allocation to have any hope of remaining solvent.  While we all already pay for the many folks gaming the healthcare system now, the cost of Hillary's "plan" will not only saddle our younger generations with even more debt, it will also force the demise of the other Democrats' (and AARP's) beloved entitlement programs because their respective costs will produce a parasite of such biblical proportions that it will kill the host.

 

I look forward to your responses!