The reality is that if the Administration passes significant health-care reform that works—that is, it regulates bad behavior by the insurance companies, makes insurance portable, makes it possible for individuals to buy insurance at reasonable rates, and reduces (as a result) the number of the uninsured—American voters will not care that it passed via reconciliation. Political victory on this issue isn’t going to be determined by how the law gets enacted. It’ll be determined by what happens once it is enacted.
The way I see it, Surowiecki is also saying that it will therefore be okay if we raise taxes to pay for healthcare. Granted, tax raising is not a part of the process of bill making, but it is probably necessary for the bill to pass. And if we get something we like, such as guaranteed health insurance, caps on medical bills, and the freedom from the stress of our current precariousness, the final result will be popular. For example, no senior citizens want to get rid of Medicare even if they are against a public insurance option; the blowhards of the far right will probably be the same way once we have a public option. There’s a reason that no major conservative party in any other developed country wants to dismantle their health system: people actually like the peace of mind of knowing they won’t go bankrupt because they went to the emergency room (which they went to because their treatable condition was neglected because they did not have insurance or couldn’t afford the treatment required). It’s not like a tax for healthcare is frivolous and being done to enrich some fat cats. There will not be bureaucrats becoming millionaires or using the revenue for gold toilets; it’s a tax which would actually be put to a productive use.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.