Economics of socialism. Can we afford it?

I have to voice some concerns. I know the majority of you don't need this little rant, but sometimes I just have to vent. And it is possible that someone will read this who may need it. Whether we need it just to know that we are not alone, or to maybe try and see things from a different viewpoint.

The big political news is, of course, the pending vote on the huge nationalized health care bill. Several things about that whole thing scare me. One: Having read......no! Having attempted to read several pages of that monster, I wonder what scary things get dropped into our legal code every day. Have any of you tried to read these bills?? The legal gobbledygook is mind boggling. References to paragraphs and subheadings, and code this, and addendum that, run in sequence as though it were a sentence.

1900 PAGES worth!! What are they slipping past us, and themselves? Yes, taking control of a huge nation's health care system is no small task, but since those responsible are claiming it is not a takeover, just a clean-up, it seems like a huge pile of hard reading. Once again, I have not received comforting answers when asking my congressional reps if they have read the whole thing. They have not, and will not let constituents' opinions direct their congressional choices!! (what the ....what?!?) And they may vote as early as Friday?

Two: I do not trust those responsible, when they claim that the "government option" is simply to add an affordable alternative for those who can't currently find insurance through private firms. I have 3 chronically ill children. I know about the challenges of finding insurance. Justin (diabetic), currently has good coverage through an already existing Govt. program. CHIP has saved his opportunity to be on a mission. He would not be going, if not for that insurance. Benjamin and Ian (chronic IBD and autistic, respectively) are indeed on Medicaid, for which I am grateful, but if this newest monster passes, I trust the CBO and the BBB, which say that Medicare and Medicaid will see huge cuts to help "pay" for the "public option". By the way, CHIP is also through medicaid.

Michelle currently doesn't have coverage, a fact I hate, because my employer (Conway Schools, but indirectly the State of Arkansas) doesn't offer equal coverage, and increases this past year would have made my very small annual step increase actually go backward. The State pays about twice as much on "state employees" as they do for teachers, and they expect the districts to pick up any significant difference. Of course, the employee pays the bulk of the plan. State and district covered $131 for the employee (about half), but spouse and children have to be covered solely by me! Our family premium was moved up to $887/month! ($756 out of my pocket!)

Michelle's portion of that was bumping $400 for some reason, so we decided to drop her from the coverage and attempt to find something supplemental. We ended up doing a minor "self-insured" program.

Now we are facing the threat that if we continue being "self insured", we will have to pay a fine (called "public option", so that the Government can claim to be covering all uninsured persons). Right now, it isn't pretty, but we put aside $50-100 each month to cover Michelle's medical expenses, and, yes, we pray very hard that she will stay generally healthy.

And three: Like any major govt. program, the method of payment will be taxes. This is not a redirection of funds. The 800+ BILLION dollar program will be paid for in taxes and other fees, from both individuals, and medical industry companies. And keep in mind something I "ranted" months ago. When we raise the taxes on businesses and the wealthy people who create the businesses, if they want to stay in business, they will get their money from the end consumer.

Again, an illustration. Units, all units of purchase (gallons, pints, boxes, loaves, minutes, etc.) will not have to increase much to hurt us. If the taxes on a major corporation's UNIT supply go up significantly, because the Government feels they are making "scandalous profits", they can make that up by raising the price of each unit by a few cents. If each unit went up one nickel, not very many people would complain loudly. How much did we see gas, milk, cereal, bread, etc. go up last year, and no huge public outcry.? If an average family purchases 10000 UNITS per year (a very low figure), that nickel increase amounts to expenses growing by $500. Wouldn't seem like much, unless annual income was threatening to go backward. Oh, wait! Yeah, it would seem like much, since many people would need to work an extra week to make up that difference, and there are only 52 weeks in the year.

So a socialist government continues to raise taxes to pay for newer and bigger programs, to take care of the growing number of people who can't make ends meet, and those businesses, trying to stay alive, will raise the UNIT price, while attempting to maintain the cost/Unit, ie. wages utilities. and such. Vicious cycle, larger government involvement if not outright control. Businesses being "purchased" or taken over by the government(bailouts, with conditions naturally), attempts to portray a concept of "private ownership", but overt government influence on every aspect of economic life, both for the individual and the corporate world.

Any of this seeming familiar lately? It has been attempted in other countries, some of them for decades, and the outcome is less than desirable. Some of our friends who have worked this way for some time, are seeing so many problems, they are going to a system similar to what America has been up to this point. Germany, for example, has shifted very much toward a business friendly centrist/conservative government coalition, after many years of struggling with the financial burdens of a fairly socialist approach. At last check, Sweden still has a very socialist program, and a tax burden bordering the 70% range. A friend I knew years ago said you had to be so far in debt to be able to keep your paycheck, that your grandchildren might hope to pay it off, if they were not in the same boat.

When the government promises to take care of everything, someone will have to pay for it. Government officials will try to make it sound like the business owners who make big profits are evil, so they can convince the rest of us that it is OK to "take from the rich to give to the poor". Only problem, they are not Robin Hood, they are the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Let us work it out! When it costs too much, we the people, won't buy it! Those companies who want to stay alive will lower their prices to a point that they succeed. When we can't afford something needed, like health care, if left alone, someone will fill the void. It is not always perfect, or pretty, but it is going to happen. When we want something, we will find a way to get it! Keep the government out of the way! When the Sheriff of Nottingham gets involved, the Robin Hoods of the world will step in. By the way, consider that Robin was one of those "evil" wealthy people, who saw the suffering of the common people, and found a way to step in and help. The sheriff simply used the beggars to forward his own agenda and plots to control the country. WOW!