In the president's own words, the "vast majority" of Americans will be able to keep their current insurance, the current doctor. (This is correct, as far as it goes, but if the President were under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", that "whole truth" part would cause him to stumble. "Vast Majority" will be able to keep their current care, all other things being equal, which is not reality. More in a minute.)

So back to the "vast majority" item: if we take the President's own estimate (final paragraph in linked item) of the number of uninsured, we're talking about roughly 15% of the current US population.

Fine. 15% is fairly significant. But wait; there's more. The percentage has remained fairly consistent for ten years (it was 15% in 1998 also). But ten years ago, it's estimated that nearly half of that 15% was uninsured for only a period of time (perhaps due to unemployment or some other factor), rather than chronically uninsured. So that means that really, only about 7.5% was chronically uninsured. Which means that 7.5% of the population was uninsured by choice (as I was recently, until a new employer's cost for insurance made economic sense for me to opt in to their plan).

Let's factor in today's higher unemployment rate, and let's say that 10% of the population is chronically without insurance. That's 30.4 million. That means that 90% of the current US population doesn't need fixing.

So, where's the crisis?

I know, I'm a cold-hearted son-of-a-gun, and I'm reducing this to logic, and I'm without compassion. But let's remember that if I'm not taxed to pay for someone else's health care (via the inherent inefficiencies of government administration), I'm free to contribute my disposable income to the charity I see as most capable of efficiently providing the emergency or long-term care needed by someone who can't otherwise obtain it, for whatever reason. (And yes: when my tax obligation was lower than it is now, I was in fact contributing more to charities with proven track records of successful provision to those in need.)

OK. So on to the "all other things being equal" section.

I've heard small business owners say in very public forums that their accountants have determined that the fine imposed by health care legislation for not providing insurance is actually less than the cost of health insurance mandated by the reform legislation being considered... in some cases, over $30,000 per month less. Here's what that means from an economic perspective: 70% of America's employers likely will consider (whether they act on their consideration or not) dropping their employees' health coverage, and opt to pay the fine. That means those employees will want to get the "public option" that President Obama does or does not want, depending on which day it is, or which audience he's addressing, or some other random factor. That means government costs go up. That means (in a Democrat administration) taxes go up. (In a Republican administration, taxes would go down, because Republicans, those right-wing hate-mongers, know that when you reduce the penalty for production, production and consumerism increases, and tax revenues actually go up.)

So if the President's health-care reform is passed, people will lose their current insurance coverage and doctor, and taxes will go up.

Not interested. Back to the drawing board.

Here's the big question no one has asked the President (at least, no one I've seen, heard, or read):

If anyone is naive enough to believe employers will retain their lowest-paid workers after a minimum wage is imposed, they're deluding themselves and no one else. Employers are in business to make money, not spend money. If they can find a less expensive way to get a job done, they'll do it. That means if the cleaning crew's salary expense just got increased by legislation, the employer will cut the crew down enough to keep his (or her) budget in line.  

Raising the minimum wage does not make the money appear in the employer's wallet. Instead, it costs people their jobs! But those affected by minimum wage legislation don't know it or don't care, or don't believe it'll happen to them, because most of them are entry-level with no experience, and are the same people who believe that if they just "invest" enough money in lottery tickets, they'll win.

Let's talk tax cuts for a minute: Why does a reduced tax rate increase government receipts?? Because the tax burden is reduced, giving consumers more spendable income and ... guess what? Sales increase. Ever hear the phrase, "we sell at a discount and make it up in volume"? All that means is, "if we can sell enough extra stuff by cutting your cost, we'll still make the same amount of money -- everyone wins: you get a lower price, we still make our profit." Most retailers know they'll more than make it up with additional sales volume.

Did you know that when the government reaches into a corporation’s pockets by increasing corporate taxes, the corporation ends up paying less tax? That’s because they don’t really pay tax at all. They figure not only the cost of an item into the retail price, they figure their overhead as well: shipping, packaging, salaries, etc., are all part of the consumer’s purchase price. And taxes are part of that price. Corporations pass their tax obligation along to their customers. Consumers pay all taxes. So when corporate taxes go up, retail prices go up, sales go down, and less actual tax is paid by the corporation to the Imperial Federal Government.  (Thanks to Neal Boortz for the government's title.)

Want to make a difference? Look up fairtax.org. If this legislation were passed, consumer costs would be cut so much that even with a national sales tax rate of 23%, we'd see a net increase in our income. And low-income folks would actually lose their tax obligation! Oh, and by the way: we'd never have to file another tax return ever again, and we'd never have to worry about whether we'd get audited if we claim a certain deduction.

Thanks for the soapbox. We return you now to your regular programming.