Megan McArdle has a useful post on how the future of health care reform might look.
Contrary to popular liberal belief, the conservative objection to national health care reform is not about lack of sympathy for poor people who can't afford insurance (and let's not even get into families with 2 cars, 3 televisions, mobile phone plans for their 10 year olds, 2 dogs and a gym membership who "can't afford" insurance), but about real fiscal conservatism. As in, "How the f--- are we going to pay for this?" This question becomes especially salient after you take a look at what's happening in Massachusetts with people gaming the system only a few years after health insurance reform took effect.
There are also those who have legitimate ideological objections to the individual mandate. But of course, without the mandate, national health care reform wouldn't work.
Quick, can anyone think of a product or service that individuals are required to purchase simply for breathing? Don't even think about naming auto insurance because that's attached to vehicles, not individuals. And there's no requirement that you own a car. I wonder if the individual mandate could actually stand up to a serious court challenge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
This film will open commercially in the United States on 22 April 2011. Immediately after being born, an infant child is tattooed ... -
As I rewatched Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down for the first time I more than a decade, two other war Berchtesgaden more than a year late... -
There are those moments when going to see a new movie in the cinema can allow you to be a witness to a sea change in filmmaking. When The...
No comments:
Post a Comment