Wednesday, August 05, 2009
He argues for revamping the health care system because of the costs of providing care to the uninsured... saying that "It's about getting them (the uninsured) into the system so they pay into it"... and that doing so "... reduce the cost for the rest of us".
Where to start criticizing, where to start...
How about with his implying the uninsured don't "pay into the system" when in fact a fair number of those without health insurance do in fact pay for some if not all of their health care costs?
Moving on to a more substantive complaint with his comments, the 'rest of us' pay for health care for the uninsured in the form of higher fees for service from hospitals and doctors to make up for what they don't receive from the uninsured... a dynamic that doesn't change if these uninsured are forced or encouraged or whatever to buy insurance. The 'rest of us' would still have to pay the costs of providing health care to these people that exceed what they would pay in premiums.
As I have written before, if you establish that the cost of the nation receiving X amount of health care is $Y, then unless you figure out a way of providing X amount of health care for a cost something less than $Y, then all you're doing is arguing about whose pocket(s) the $Y is coming out of... and pretty much across the board, the Democrats plans all result in the same thing: the healthy, wealthy and prudent having to pick up the tab for the sick, poor and stupid.
You could argue (I'd disagree, but you can argue) that society should provide quality health care to everybody regardless of income, health or intelligence... but spare me the insult of trying to convince me that it isn't going to cost me both a bunch of money and a decrease in the quality of care that I receive.