Hi, it’s me again. To be sure, for many of you, nay, make that for most if not every single one of you — your very worst nightmare.
Well, as promised, it is now high time for the solutions:
First, I’d like to address, as you might recall, the two very most daunting problems with President Obama’s Health Care Plan; otherwise formally known by the acronym PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) also pronounced by stuttering the first two consonants (i.e., pah-pah-pah-pack-ah).
As I see it, in addition to PPACA’s issue as to its very fundamental constitutionality itself, it is also fraught with problems in cost and in the myth of so-called, supposed “death panels.” So, at this point in time, I again forgo the former, but will address the latter two issues simultaneously, which I both combine and see as one.
In my previous article, “Why President Obama’s Health Care Plan is Still a Win-Win Winner, Part 2,799.63” I stressed the importance of cost, but also that older people are just downright annoying and irritating, and are a corrupting influence upon our youth; in addition to their being incontinent, forgetful, accident-prone and just downright crotchety and ornery, cranky, crabby, grumpy, grouchy and cantankerous, or nauseatingly and sickeningly saccharine sweet, and smothering and suffocatingly so; not to mention their being hard-of-hearing and dim-sighted as well as dim-witted, gullible and stupid; and let us not forget that they are one of the primary causes of “the heartbreak of psoriasis” and “ring around the collar.”
Nor must we omit the fact that they smell like hell; that they have a sickening musty aroma, the sort of stink that comes from no longer bathing on a regular basis, smothered over with cheap perfume and cologne; and or worst yet, that they simply possess the stench of imminent, warmed over death.
All of which are more than sufficient cause and ample reason why Granny and Grandpa MUST DIE! And again, the most compelling of these myriad reasons still primarily remains cost.
Look here, dear readers, they’re just simply too goddamn expensive to keep around and care for (to paraphrase Robert Reich who said as much in 2007). As simple as that. I really don’t need to go into the rather arcane and boring details, but one must ask oneself this question: are we really willing to spend so much of our national treasure with the requisite and corollary, necessary and exigent taxation upon ourselves to the point that we will have to deny our children $ 250 designer sneakers every three months, ‘game boys’ and X-boxes, $ 1,000 road bikes, ‘ipods’ and ‘blackberries’, designer jeans and other extravagantly, expensive apparel?
Article comments
1 - Deathrider6
Thanks for he article...It made my day. I'm all for health care for everyone but "Obamacare" just rubs me wrong. I can't give a better solution per se but torte reform might be a better idea. As I said before not sure how to go about it but anything beats being fined or forced into poverty just beacuse you HAVE to carry insurance.
2 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Deathrider6,
Thanks for your kind comment.
I see it in very simplistic terms - simply get liberal-progressive bureaucracy and big-government out of it, and return to true free marketplace based reforms and business practices. And for the poor, give them vouchers - but with copays so even they would have some skin in the game.
BTW, tort reform would be, nay, make that must be a major component of healthcare reform. Yes, we need scumbag, shyster, lower-than-the-belly-of-a-worm, bloodsucking, vermin lawyers to a certain extent and degree, but not these aforementioned vile, scumbag, bloodsucking shysters.
Speaking of whom, does Sen. Edwards ring a bell?
3 - Deathrider6
Sen. Edwards...That name does ring a rather loud bell. Now to continue my train of thought. Would possible deductions for health care insurance costs also work to make healthcare insurace more attractive to smaller business? I know the requirements vary from state to state but if you made insurance premiums tax deductable for both business and private indviduals I suspect more companies could and would find it more attactive to offer coverage. Just another couple of thoughts here to stir the pot.
I do agree that the bureaucracy should be kept out of it as much as possible as it adds more cost to any program. The fewer layers the less unneeded expenses are involved.
4 - Irvin F. Cohen
Dear Deathrider6,
Thanks again for the comment.
Sorry, a little bit too much in the weeds for me.
But yeah, sounds good to me...I think. Surely however, you're on the right path.