Good Monday Morning out there to the live and semi-sane; your King of Simple News is hot off the keyboard.

 Let me try and clear up a few more issues with the current healthcare bill. To begin with, King of Simple friend, Wma, was absolutely correct when he said that this is not a healthcare bill; it’s a mandatory insurance bill. Okay, I’ll concede that this may be a financial-healthcare bill for the insurance companies.

It is suggested that the bill will provide healthcare insurance to 29 MILLION people that are presently uninsured, and at the same time, reduce overall government deficits by $81 Billion in the decade beginning in 2010. When pigs fly! Small words such as deficit are soooo important when playing “spin till ya win.” Ya see, the government math guys aren’t talking about saving money, they’re talking about losing less. That’s a big difference. How much difference?

Let’s break this mess down a little with Mikeronomics. The government is suggesting that they can save $81 Billion over 10 years, beginning in 2010. That is a reduction of $8.1 Billion per year over the ten year period. Our current annual deficit is close to $1.75 TRILLION and the White House has stated that we can expect to have $1 TRILLION + deficits for years to come; George done it don’t ya know?

Giving the government whiz kids the benefit of the doubt, let’s say they are correct and we will only be short a $Trillion per year over the next ten years. A Trillion is a Thousand Billion. So, in order to reduce the deficit by 8.1 Billion per year, would require saving .0081% of a Trillion dollar deficit.

That amounts to a whopping, $28.38 savings for every American, each and every year. Wow, Bonanza! However, due to the coming government issued inflation, that $28.38 may not buy a loaf of bread in 11 years, but that’s not the government’s problem. Wink, wink.

So where would the government get this entire massive annual savings of $28.38 per person? How about forcing mandatory health insurance on an already bleeding public? Or better stated, the process of indirect taxation? Obama said he wouldn’t raise taxes on Middle America; he didn’t say he wouldn’t force you to buy health insurance under penalty of law. And they called Nixon “Tricky Dick.”

Unintended consequences are still,…well… consequences. I personally don’t believe the consequences are unintended, because I don’t think our leadership is that dumb. But then I take a hard look at Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and ….

Back to the Obamacare. Please remember, you have the right to remain silent, and if you can’t afford health insurance, coverage will be provided for you. Uh-oh.

One of the overlooked segments of the real cost of Obamacare (one of thousands), was best stated by P.J. O’Rourke; “If you think health care is expensive now…just wait until it’s free.”

O’Rourke’s meaning is clear. Once insurance is provided to one person at the expensive of another; Katy bar the door and the cost. From a humanitarian standpoint this may seem like the thing to do. From a mathematical standpoint, under our current system, that dog won’t hunt.

Another of my concerns that is being missed by approximately 37 feet, is the very real fact that millions upon millions of Americans continue losing their jobs, homes, and life savings. (But the recession is over). So…where would these folks get an extra $1,000 per month for a good family healthcare plan?

Ohhhhh, I see, that’s why this healthcare plan doesn’t kick in for a few years. By the time it does go into full force, everyone will be back to work and the economy will have made a complete recovery. Such reasoning is based on “assumptions” and you know how to spell assume don’t you? Ass-U-Me.

Mr. Obama made the assumption that unemployment would not go above 8% on his watch. Today, the same misguided Chicago neighborhood planner assumes that unemployment will exceed 10% through next year. So much for assumptions.

Now say that you are one of the lucky people still hangin’ in there with about $43.12 per month to spare…when suddenly, under penalty of law, you are required to come up with a health insurance premium. What are you going to do? Sure, sell the house and move into a tent to comply with the law. We all have to do our share. But then, how would housing recover?

Let’s say that you are making around $6,000 more than the national poverty rate and are suddenly required to pay $12,000 annually for a family health insurance policy, under penalty of law. But, if you quit your job or cut earnings by $6,000, the government would not only provide you with health insurance, but would also pay for a college education for four years, give you food stamps, and reduce your rent and heating costs? I know, you’d buckle down, sell your car, ride the bus, and eat oatmeal and grits for dinner to come up with the additional $6,000. But then, if you sell your car, how would Government Motors sell Chevy’s?

Wordherder (Michael from North Carolina) asked an important question this morning when commenting on yesterday’s blog; “do we have a right to affordable health care, or should we get it only if we can afford it?”

I replied with another question; “If we go camping, don’t haul in firewood, don’t help cut the firewood, don’t help make the fire, and make no attempt to help prepare the food after which we don’t help with the cleanup; do we have the right to sit warmly by the flames and eat?”

Following my line of reasoning, politicians in America have no right to free air, let alone food and healthcare.