Single-payer national health insurance may be the best outcome, but we should get there after an honest debate, not through the back door. (my emphasis)I didn't like that sentence for two reasons. (1) The country has spent the last six months debating health care reform in town halls, Congress halls, cable shows, morning shows, blogospheres, and dining rooms. I just don't know what "honest debate" Hiatt holds his breath for; (2) What's wrong with a little sneaky public policy?
Today, Ezra Klein quotes Jon Kingsdale, director of the Massachusetts health insurance exchange:
If you're going to do health-care cost containment, it's going to have to be stealth. It's going to have to happen before any of the players understand what's happening.As a political matter, there are problems with developing a reputation for this kind of thing, because eventually stealthy starts to look like a euphemism straight-up lying. But a bit of sneakiness is probably going to be necessary to get some cost control legislation through Congress. We need higher taxes for more than the richest one percent, and right now, America won't vote for any candidate who says that. If you agree with both parts of that sentence, doesn't that necessarily make you a friend of stealthiness?
right now, America won't vote for any candidate who says that.
Are we sure about that?
I think so! Who's the last successful candidate to promise higher taxes for the whole population?
My wife was standing about 8 feet from her boss, in 1984, when he promised to raise people's taxes. Things did not go exactly swimmingly for him after that.
You say we have debated it and to an extent we have, but you are ignoring the fact the majority of americans dont want to see all of this money wasted on this. I for one will not vote anyone who votes in favor of this total waste of money we call health care reform.
To go a step further if this passes i will sue the goverment as they have no right to tell me what to do in regard to health care, not only that i will activly recruit people to join my suit. You pass this i will do everything in my power to bankrupt your commy regime. Just say no to communism people.
The idea you can "sneak" these things past all the lobbyists implies you think that Congress is smarter than the lobbyists, or can do something they won't notice. Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is a joke.
And you seem to have the idea that the government can and should give people "what's good for them" even if they don't know they want it. Wrong again. This is supposedly a democracy.
And you seem to show some concern about "straight-up lying". You should know that loss of legitimacy is the worst thing that could happen to the government, and this is the way to make that happen.
"We need higher taxes for more than the richest one percent, and right now, America won't vote for any candidate who says that."
Ok, it took your reply to see the "more than" bit.
I agree though, tax rates are too low across the board - at least for all the things we demand the government do for us. But they need to increase the rates in proportion. Everybody needs to pay something.
Politicians should be telling us the truth about what's going to be provided and at what cost to us, giving real life examples along the way. This needs to cost everyone, in proportion maybe, but everyone needs to know the costs.
There is "project" housing here in town, and no one lives there for free. The cheapest rent is like $60 a month and they pay for their own utilities. I have not heard anything about the amount each person will have to pay, in co-pays or deductibles, or premiums in fact. I have heard about these "chits" where low-income folks can turn them in for insurance or care. Basically for free. Nothing about any cash out of their pocket. And when someone doesn't have to pay, well, they use more. Just look at the person using food-stamps (it's on a plastic card these days), they are buying better, and more, than working folks have in their basket.
We all receive something from the government, so too should we all pay something into the government. Currently, a single parent making $30K a year would not owe any federal income tax after factoring in the available credits. Nada. But they have the same protections and rights that I do, and they maybe receive more in benefits than I do, yet they are completely detached from the costs of those benefits.
There was a study a while back that had about 40 something percent of the population receiving more in government benefits than they paid in taxes, federal, state and local combined. Like I said, that was a while back, and with the aging population going on SSA benefits, and the rising unemployment drawing down benefits (and paying less in taxes), that amount is probalby close to or over 50%. Tack on a taxpayer funded insurance program, more benefits that they don't pay for, and that rate is probably well over 50%. We can't sustain 50% + of the population voting themselves more benefits (or a politician who promises them more) than the remaining earners can pay for.