Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
If the "individual mandate" that Krauthammer describes would do the trick, that would be wonderful. (Easy for me to say--I'm not one of the 18 million Americans who would have to pay premiums to support me!) Maybe if we add in some tort reform, some taxes on the wealthiest among us, and some sort of government-mandated record-keeping and insurance claim simplification, we could get there from here.
I was a little disappointed in Krauthammer's use of the phrase "transfer of wealth" again. He's right, of course. To substantially reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S. in order to avoid the system from breaking our economy worse than it is now, of course there will have to be a transfer of wealth. It might be means testing for benefits, increased taxes on some, mandated insurance on those who don't want it or need it, forced reductions in payments for service--lots of things from among a list of things that would either increase out-of-pocket costs for some, or substantial elimination of benefits while keeping the premium payments at a high level. Either way, wealth will be transferred. But I see little to be gained by continually trying to inflame citizens by continually using the phrase.
|
Tort reform isn't reform at all. If the goal is to reduce medical costs by eliminating the reason for "defensive medicine" practices, that will require blanket immunity from suit. Where limitations on medical malpractice claims are in force (CA is the best example), defensive medicine practices are still unchecked and overall medical costs still follow the same cost curves (if not higher) as elsewhere. So, are we willing to give blanket immunity to suit for the medical profession?
This "transfer of wealth" concept frightens me. Where is the line drawn? This is the "camel's nose under the tent flap" story with a dollar sign application. If done with health care, what's next - the type of car you can drive, or how much energy you can use at your house?
And when we increase taxes on the 'some," who are they? Of course, it's not us!
So we tax the "wealthiest among us," which always seems to be a bigger and bigger pool as more and more money is needed due to politically-inspired cost estimating that's always woefully short. Since the CBO says again that the cost curves are totally wrong as forecasted by the proponents of this health care scheme, we can expect "trickle down" taxation to bite us all.
We have the CBO so that we can have the most accurate and objective cost estimation before the gavel comes down. If we want to ignore the CBO forecasts as "inconvenient" to "Change, We can believe in," and continue merrily towards fiscal ruin, then we indeed have drunk the kool-aid and delegated full control of our lives to the party - and that is socialism at its worst.
When a health care plan can be shown by the CBO as meeting the fiscal goals of the plan's sponsors, and those goals are such that we actually have a better posture than present, then it will be endorsed by all of us. But this "to heck with the CBO forecasts, we need this passed by ____" is folly.