« Field of Dreams | Main | It was the Autumn of ’69… »
Truth or Consequences – But Not Both!
By Brian | November 18, 2009 | Share on Facebook
As we move toward the passage of a health care bill, the opinion polling isn’t necessarily getting more useful, but it is certainly getting more entertaining.
Our friends at the Associated Press do their best impression of Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” routine:
A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems: 82% in favor
A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems that would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance: 43% in favor
Everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance: 67% in favorEveryone should be required to have at least some health insurance, or face a federal penalty: 28% in favor
All companies should be required to give their employees at least some health insurance: 73% in favorCompanies that don’t give their employees at least some health insurance would face a fine: 52% in favor
So, to sum up: require coverage for more people, but don’t raise my premiums and don’t penalize in any way those who ignore this new requirement.
Ah, democracy…
Topics: Political Rantings | 11 Comments »
OTOH, with single-payer or universal Medicare, or some such, you get all the mandatories you like, and you amortize the costs over the entire population. One-to-one correlation between increased benefits and personal fines go away — leaving an endless debate over taxation, of course, but that’s got little to do with the above.
The real issue is that we, as a country, all seem to agree that health care is, generically, a good thing, but we also all agree that the busines case for it stinks – you either wind up with increased regulation, higher premiums, higher taxes, coverage restrictions, or some combination of the above.
When you ask the real question: “Do you want health care reform given the inevitable financial ramifications?” then public opinion gets a lot softer – sometimes moreso than the humanitarian inside of us is comfortable admitting…
I can think of a dozen ways to finance health care that don’t involve taxes, and if you call them taxes anyway, then you’re using Luntz language and he’s won the argument, not you.
I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
— President Barack Obama
— Remarks to the Joint Session of Congress
— 9/9/09
The statistics in my original post suggest that everyone agrees the business case stinks.
The President has already ruled out the complete removal and replacement of the insurance industry, which is what you’re basically advocating above.
And as for taxes, any money I give to the government so that the government can spend it on the country as a whole are either called taxes or function in the same way as taxes. Luntz can call them whatever he wants.
You’re just concerned about the “Read my lips…no new taxes” moment that Barack Obama is steering himself towards in 2012…
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 per year, will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
— Candidate Barack Obama
— Dover, New Hampshire, 9/12/08
— All three Presidential Debates (almost word-for-word)
— First speech to Congressional joint-session, 2/24/09
FamilyGreenberg.Com is proudly powered by WordPress.
The template is from RFDN and has been modified extensively by yours truly
Here is the RSS feed for the Entries and here is the RSS feed for the Comments