Julian Sanchez is as confused about the rationale for the current health-care deform as I am:
So we’re eliminating the rationale for the role private insurance companies play in our system, but insisting that it continue to revolve around them and, even better, handing them an enormous subsidy. What we’ve eliminated is the counterweight designed to check costs, because that part, according to a logic I completely fail to fathom, is especially socialist.
What’s remarkable about this is how naked and brazen it is. That is, I can’t come up with any remotely coherent pretext for thinking this particular policy combination makes sense on any set of background assumptions or values. (Which isn’t to say the same system with the public option was much more coherent.) Contemplate how extraordinary that is: There’s almost always at least some fig leaf of an ideological principle or an economic argument strung up in front of even the most naked interest group grab. But nobody seems to be even pretending this compromise amounts to anything but an open bribe to the very insurers whose existence it renders unjustifiable.
Also, if I hear one more economically ignorant moron tell me that we “need a public option to provide competition for insurance companies,” superheated steam will come out my ears. This is a phrase so absurd that I don’t know why its utterers don’t melt down in the sheer incandescent idiocy of it. If there isn’t competition in the insurance business, it is because (as is always the case in which there is no competition) there is some government policy that prevents it. Fix that. Don’t set up a health-care DMV to “compete” at taxpayer expense.
[Mid-afternoon update]
One of the deranged but prevailing myths among Democrats is that they lost the Congress in 1994 because they didn’t pass HillaryCare, when in reality, their loss was due to a combination of their attempt to do so, plus the “assault” weapons ban, and other misbegotten legislation. But because they continue to indulge themselves in this bizarre fantasy, they continue to equally imagine that their key to political success is ramming this monstrosity through. Sean Trende makes a devastating case against that lunacy as well, and explains why it would actually be political suicide for them. Which almost, but not quite, makes me want to see it pass.
[Bumped]
If “reform” were the goal, then we’d be talking about removing the many and substantial barriers to entry that exist in the health insurance and medical services industries.
What we need more of is competition. What we need less of is government interference. Naturally, the government has this entirely ass backwards.
Here’s one of the best short videos demonstrating the problem with the public option:
“The Public Option in 40 Seconds”
http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/12/public-option-in-40-seconds.html
A solid chunk of the angst with ‘what we’ve got’ could be summed up as “Big Med.” Why making Big Med an appendage of the government (and thus essentially, if not totally eliminating oversight) is a good idea is the puzzling part.
If we insist on insurance, the goal should be getting people to the point that they can afford larger-and-larger deductible plans. Plan: Every year the insurance company remits tax free funds into an individual’s permanent medical fund. As the fund accumulates, the individual can (clearly) afford higher and higher deductible plans. Make the fund inheritable tax free.
It doesn’t sound that exciting, but it provides a framework for a wide array of approaches to help the poor/military/widows/kids/whoever. Providing a “pure private plan” for all babies born in 2010 would cost practically nothing. Serious outlays for children born in 2010 (collectively) won’t begin until 2060. That’s fifty years of compounding interest – assuming the whole house of cards doesn’t freaking collapse before then.
At the end of the day, 60 Dem senators have to push this thing through and the Dems fry for it next November. They could have just gone for outright single-payer – they’d have achieved more for their goals and paid the same price.
They could have just gone for outright single-payer – they’d have achieved more for their goals and paid the same price.
They couldn’t have gotten sixty votes for it.
They couldn’t have gotten sixty votes for it.
Sure they could. They’re voting on bills they not only haven’t read personally – but haven’t even seen, and aren’t even finalized at vote time.
“Oh no, this is just a modest reform of Medicare and Medicaid for this dire era of recession. Just lowering entrance requirements somewhat.”
-> What do you mean the entrance requirements are now “Anyone under 10,100% of the poverty line?” I don’t recall agreeing to that? Hey, you agreed to add “10 %” and we added the ten… right before the 100% that was already there. You voted for it, suck it up.
They couldn’t have gotten sixty votes for it.
Only because insufficient numbers were willing to “take one for the team.” A proper messiah would have sacrificed any number of senators for the win.
And here’s the amazing thing: the Democrats weren’t planning on this debacle; it’s only because Mr. Dreamy got elected and made it his signature legislative goal that they got suckered into repeating 1994.
I predicted this last November! In 2008 the country was so sick of Repblicans the Democrats could have run a stuffed horse and won. Why not pick someone moderate-left, who could best cement the majority? But no. The worst possible outcome for the Democratic Party in 2008 was to nominate Mr. Pied Piper, because he was surely going to lead them right over the cliff. And there they go!
I just hope they get the dazzle from his shiny black skin out of their eyes soon enough to avoid a giant Republican blowout. The last thing we need is that crowd with a 60-vote supermajority.
I don’t get it, Carl. You mean the crowd that, as they’re cutting taxpayer checks to their Fortune 500 buddies, can’t open its mouth without the word “abortion” spilling out? Surely, you’re just being paranoid.
The thing that bugs me is haven’t these people heard of being too greedy? Because they’re grabbing for everything they can get, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot with the “blue dog” crowd. Maybe it’s some sort of tragedy of the commons situation that always devolves into a looting spree.
Why not have a private fire department as well? It worked so well for Marcus Crassus.
Remember that Marcus Crassus had the power to stomp out (up to and including death of the people involved) any rival fire fighting business.
That only applies to Everybody Else™. Just like it’s not possible for them to be fascist, or racist, or über-polluting…
Why not have all home improvement stores give everything away for free? That would work so well.