I like the DDC and its realistic proposals.
I'll start with defense. If we are going to move toward taking a realistic view of our role in the world (one based on our 25% of World Production down from the 50% we enjoyed immediately after WWII) then that will involve reducing our military expenditures to considerably less than half of the total world expenditures.
They were right on target on that.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David said on the Buffett thread that the DDC was a fraud because it did not deal with Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteDavid apparently did not get the memo.
There will not be any NHI (= national health insurance) as long as large numbers of people have very expensive insurance provided by their employers (which makes them think of it as free).
Obamacare is a transition program.
The penalties for not giving health care to employees are less than the cost of health care.
Companies will drop health coverage.
Then, in that new environment, the public will find NHI much more appealing.
Did Clinton say (and I paraphrase) that until we fix health care we will not be able to fix anything else.
ReplyDeleteWell I don't know if he said it and don't have time to research it at the moment, but if he did I think he had it right.
If you are also right then I guess we have to wait until the employers decide that it is time for NHI.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but you brought up health care.
Very interesting that you describe it as if I suggested that employers will decide this in the national interest.
ReplyDeleteOf course I am not saying that.
Employers will do what they believe is in their self interest.
Obama care offers them a choice: pay a fine of x or provide health care which cost more than x.
I predict that in that event they will choose to pay x.
The uninsured employees will then be much more supportive of NHI.
Then real NHI will happen.
I could be right or wrong but my thinking does not depend on when "employers decide that it is time for NHI"
Don't know what you intended but "there will not be NHI ... as long as [I think this means "IF"] ... health insurance ... [is] provided by their employers" implies that it is up to the employers unless someone says they cannot provide said insurance.
ReplyDeleteI in no way assume that the employers will decide in the national interest although that would be wonderful if it ended in great health care for everyone.
If you are right that people will choose to pay the fine rather than get insurance then we will be much worse off than we are.
How that would lead to NHI is unclear to me since many will simply say that those that paid the fine had their choice and chose to do without ... so be it.
If the virulent opposition to government intervention in health care remains in place then we will still be hearing "we've got be best health care in the world now. We don't need anything else."
you say: If you are right that people will choose to pay the fine rather than get insurance then we will be much worse off than we are.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is that employER that will choose to pay the fine and then the employEE will be left without insurance. That will change the employEE's attitude toward national health insurance.
Gotcha! The premise is that a greater pool of people out buying as individuals will pressure Congress to fix it.
ReplyDeleteI can see that stimulating Congressional action although the push back will still be that the private market is already providing the best possible market and public option insurance is unfair to the industry.
I think the other part is that there must be mechanisms to pressure lower costs from medical professional and hospitals. They may already be in the bill, but its been a while since I looked at it.
I thought John Avlon's piece in the Daily Beast on the topic of the Deficit Commission's work ("Cowards Sank the Deficit Plan") was pretty good.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is not sunk. Maybe a political party could be built around it. I'll join it if it has as its most fundamental principal that what the government taxes and spends are roughly the same. It can be 20% of GDP or 30% (I'd prefer 30) but I'll vote for balance at what ever level. How about the sanity party.
ReplyDelete