The case against a government-backed health option is being killed by the very same folks who helped create it because they now think it will hurt their chances of passing health reform come fall.
Wait, wait, wait. Wasn't one of the reasons the government option was in place to fend off going private?
So you mean those private insurers, the ones trying desperately to kill the government option, the ones who have, year after year, increased the cost of health care while driving down coverage, are the only ones who the rest of the uninsured Americans will have to choose between????
This makes absolutely no sense.
As Johnathan Cohn from The New Republic puts leaving the health care system the way it is:
"A third option would be to give up on reform altogether--that is, to do nothing. Medical care would keep getting more expensive, health insurance would keep getting more inaccessible. An insurance policy would cost $20,000 a year instead of $12,000 like it does today, leading to 60 million uninsured instead of 45 million. Even those people with insurance would increasingly find themselves without enough coverage, or the right coverage, for their particular medical needs. The cost of care would continue to impose a crushing burden on the private sector, just as it does government."
If right wing reds can call those seeking to expand health care to all, socialists, then I can call them greedy soulless bastards.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your last line "If right wing reds can call those seeking to expand health care to all, socialists, then I can call them greedy soulless bastards." reminded of this Churchill quote: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” I don't agree with the quote, though I do like it. It's very easy to use if you want to quickly start a debate about conservatism versus liberalism.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found your choice of words to describe the right as "right wing reds" to be funny. I always associate "reds" with left wing extremism. Of course, I'm sure you were thinking of Republicans, so it makes sense. I still find it amusing though.
Generally speaking, I am for a universal health care system, or, at the very least, healthcare reform. However, I have some very serious doubts about the viability of a universal health care system in a nation with a high population like the United States. The U.S. has a population of around 300 million people, whereas many of the successful “welfare states” have a significantly smaller populations. Sweden, one of the very first states in Europe to espouse the ideals of the welfare state, only has a population of 9 million. Germany, the most populous state in Europe, has around 80 million people.
Approximately 40% of the U.S. budget goes towards social security and medicare/medicaid already. Only about 1 out of every 4 Americans is covered by this, so increasing the system to a universal level, where perhaps 3 out of 4 Americans at a minimum would be covered, would probably entail astronomical costs. Around 10% of the U.S. budget is consumed by interest payments. With our nation's debt spiraling out of control, I fear that a universal health system might not be feasible.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.