Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision. -- Dick Armey
Navigate

Blog Home

NTU Home Page

Blog FAQs

About "Government Bytes!"

Support NTU

 
Subscribe
Sign up with NTU's Taxpayer Action Center





 
Blog Contributors
Aleksander Danilov
Guest Blogger

Andrew Moylan
Director of Government Affairs

Dan Barrett
Policy Analyst

David Keating
Senior Counselor

Demian Brady
Senior Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Terrell
Guest Blogger

Jeff Dircksen
Director of Congressional Analysis

Jordan Forbes
Federal Government Affairs Manager

Joshua Culling
State Government Affairs Manager

Kristina Rasmussen
Guest Blogger

Kristine Tuinstra
State Policy Analyst

NTU Gov
Government Affairs & Communications Associate

Paul Gessing
Guest Blogger

Pete Sepp
Vice President for Communications

Rachael Slobodien
Communications Manager

Ross Kaminsky
Blogger

Sam Batkins
Guest Blogger

Tom Horne
Policy Associate

Send to a Friend
Email:
Send to Friend
The Official Blog of National Taxpayers Union

Richardson's $110 Billion Health Care Plan

Posted by Demian Brady - August 08, 2007

Just as nearly every candidate to federal office vows to save billions of tax dollars by making the government more efficient and by rooting out waste (yet once in office most Members spend their time looking for ways to increase spending), candidates are now proposing to finance their multi-billion dollar government-run universal health care plans by, "making health-care delivery more efficient."

That is how New Mexico Governor and Presidential candidate Bill Richardson says he will help pay for the $110 billion annual cost of his health plan. Reminds me of the Popeye character who would gladly pay you next week for a hamburger today. If something sounds too good to be true it usually is. I don't see how a health program administered by the federal government could achieve that degree of savings without some sort of rationing.

He says he will also save money by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs. This is odd though, because the Congressional Budget Office has already reported that the ideas bandied about in Congress to implement this would have a negligible impact on federal spending.

He also says that his plan won't require new taxes because of the two recycled ideas above, plus a requirement that "businesses that do not provide health insurance to contribute toward helping the uninsured buy coverage." Maybe I am old fashioned, but when the government mandates that you have to pay something, that sounds a lot like a TAX.



Thoughts?   Add Comment -


There are no comments for this entry yet.