Philip Klein, writing in the American Spectator, implores conservatives to talk about healthcare:
Liberal activists have had more than a decade to pore over the failure of HillaryCare in 1994, and should Democrats capture the White House this fall and make further gains in Congress, they will be armed and ready to fight for government solutions to the U.S. health-care mess.
"Conservatives are not comfortable talking about this issue, and they are trying to survive it," grumbles David Gratzer, a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute. "Democrats are trying to win it, and as a result [conservatives] are always negotiating the terms of surrender."
Much like Pierre and the lion, the persistent indifference of conservatives will virtually guarantee that government will devour the private market for health care.
So go, conservative. And talk healthcare. But if you’re going to do so, go armed.
First, there are a number of ways government policy drives up the cost of healthcare, making it unaffordable (which drives up the uninsured rate):
a) Mandated coverage items leave people with very expensive plans and fewer options,
b) The tax code is unequal and subsidizes the wealthy/employed, leaving the poor with a choice between no subsidy or Medicaid,
c) The copay system drives over-consumption (e.g. incentives to see the doctor for sniffles is wasteful),
d) Expanded Medicaid causes a "death spiral,"
e) In-state lock means you can’t buy less expensive insurance in other states (Why not?)
f) Unpooled risk due to government means premiums are higher.
Second, the left wants to use these distortions and escalating prices to push America to a crisis point. They want to implement no reforms that would lower prices, because they don’t want healthcare to be affordable. Am I being cynical? If we continue with the status quo, the left believes the ignorant masses will cry out for socialized medicine. And who knows? Maybe they will. But we can’t afford to have health socialism. It will kill innovation. It will cause our taxes to go through the roof. And it will mean your health choices are replaced with a bureaucracy that puts you in a queue for weeks or months to await a common procedure. We can do better… Ask a lefty: why not tax credits?
-Max Borders
I don’t get this. Switzerland, second most expensive HC system in the world is also home to some of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies. They spends 2/3 of what we spend on HC and their system looks very similar to what Obama has proposed. Their outcomes are just as good. It’s innovative, less expensive, covers more people, and is just as good. Where’s the bugaboo, because I can’t see it.
sorry that the above was poorly edited.
I think you’re thinking of Hilary Clinton, Rambler. She has the mandated healthcare.
Obama’s is mostly the status quo plus requiring more of companies and expanding Medicaid. Doesn’t look much like Switzerland, so not sure how you reached this conclusion.
For example, the Swiss plan is not employer-based, don’t think, which causes massive distortions here in the US. The kind health system per se has little to do with where the companies locate – which is more to do with the corporate taxation rate, the banking sector, and the history of the company’s origins in Switzerland. Britain has socialized medicine but successful pharma companies. Again, no connection.