Yes, More On the Big Speech
My biggest complaint with President Obama's speech: His justification (and every justification) for mandating that the young, healthy, and uninsured purchase health insurance is just patently false. Being in my twenties, there are plenty of my peers who have spent time without health insurance and there's just no way in hell this group is costing the system money. Most of these folks don't spend a significant time uninsured- it's usually a just matter of months or a few years as they're getting started with their careers. I can think of plenty of people in their twenties without health insurance and I can't think of any of that group who wracked up large medical bills that they couldn't pay. And yes, this is anecdotal, but it's also common sense.
The real reason- the only reason to mandate the young and uninsured purchase health insurance- is to force those same young and healthy people to subsidize the medical costs of older and less healthy Americans. It's the dirty little secret of health care reform and the only real way to reduce costs for the entire system.
The real reason- the only reason to mandate the young and uninsured purchase health insurance- is to force those same young and healthy people to subsidize the medical costs of older and less healthy Americans. It's the dirty little secret of health care reform and the only real way to reduce costs for the entire system.
posted by lonely libertarian at 11:56 AM
2 Comments:
How does forcing young people to subsidize old people reduce costs for the entire system LL? Do you mean reduce the costs borne by government, not health spending overall? You must.
This is an amazing thing to watch. The real objective is to redistribute more cost to the young, to employers and to the affluent in order to provide insurance to the loyal dependants of the democratic party. That's fine.
Yet Obama is still out there claiming that his plans will reduce costs because that's what polls well. And every single argument he uses is blatantly false, from prevantive care, to eliminating the overhead of "profits".
(Hey while we're at it, let's eliminate the "overhead" of farming profits with state run farms. I think Stalin tried that.)
This is about "fairness" and yet he is still bothering to talk about lowering costs because facts simply don't matter when the media is this in the tank.
If the media did its job and demanded factual accuracy, then we could stop with the bullshit. This won't lower costs, conversation over.
Now let's talk about the real issue, whether we have a moral responsibility to pay for universal coverage. That's a conversation worth having since there's not factually correct answer.
But instead, we're stuck listening to a 45 minutes of lies because the media hasn't shut the door on the completely false cost argument he is making.
Yeah, bad word choice on my part. What we're talking about is shifting the cost burden, reducing costs for some while raising drastically raising costs on others.
Post a Comment
<< Home