Charles Krauthammer is eerily incisive in his column today — a column I hope the President and his party’s leaders are not reading. In short, a case is made for how ObamaCare 2.0 can be sold to America, with little in the way of immediate cost growth. For those wondering how universal coverage paves the way to rationing, this is the piece to read. Krauthammer unpacks five steps:
(1) Forget the public option.
(2) Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling (as the Senate has already done).
(3) Soft-pedal the idea of government committees determining “best practices.”
(4) More generally, abandon the whole idea of Obamacare as cost-cutting.
(5) Promise nothing but pleasure — for now (universal coverage, no denial for pre-existing conditions).
Read the whole thing.
How To Sell ObamaCare
5 Responses to “How To Sell ObamaCare”
Leave a Reply:
DISCOUNT PRICING!
Price will come to about $8.75/copy (including shipping). Please allow 7-10 days for delivery. (Sales tax has been added for CA purchases, per CA law.)
$8.00
CASE DISCOUNT PRICING!
1 CASE = 28 COPIES
ORDER WILL COME TO $8.00/COPY INCLUDING SHIPPING
Please allow 7-10 days for delivery. (Sales tax has been added for CA purchases, per CA law.)
$210.00
Available on Amazon!
"There is no better guide to college."
--Alex and Brett Harris
"Insightful and useful."
--Randy Alcorn
"Written by an ‘insider’—an excellent gift for high school seniors."--Jerry Bridges
Order at Another Store
 |
|
| |
 |
|
|
 |
He makes a really important observation, which holds for issues far beyond healthcare. If you are concerned about statism, you can’t just look at taxation – you must also consider other ways in which the government is exercising economic power. When you boil it down, there isn’t much difference between a “targeted tax cut” vs. taxing and spending: a tax credit for dependent children really is the same as a child subsidy, except it perversely does not benefit those poor enough to not pay taxes. Similarly, Krauthammer’s Obamacare 2.0, while not technically a tax, is an enormous economic power grab by the government, and I agree with his prediction that it will eventually have all the same benefits and problems as single payer care would, since it is essentially the same thing. We must be vigilant not just about tax increases, but about any way in which the government attempts to exert economic influence.
It’s sad to see Krauthammer resorting to name-calling (“Obamacare”) and playing the “end-of-life counseling” and “rationing” cards. As if health care is not rationed in the United States today! He suggests: “Look at Canada. Look at Britain.” Good advice! And also look at the United States while you’re at it.
Peter,
When you say health care is rationed today, are you making the observation that private insurance decides what they’ll fund and what they won’t fund? In order words, are you saying that private insurance “rations” health care? (And, I suppose you might say, the problem is accentuated by the fact that some are not insured at all?)
Peter, when people speak of rationing in this context they mean a government-imposed quota. This is what “health care rationing” *always* means. It is not talking about “supply and demand.” To say that health care is rationed today in the US because not everyone can afford everything they want or need is insipid and distracting.
Alex: Yes, any form of health insurance (private, Medicare, or whatever) has the insurer deciding what it will or will not fund. In that sense, the insurer rations care.
Erik: There’s an ambiguity here. If “health care rationing” *always* means a government-imposed quota, does it mean
(a) any quota on the health care available through a government plan;
or does it mean only
(b) a quota on the health care one is allowed to obtain at all, regardless of an individual patient’s willingness and ability to pay for everything he may want or need?
If it’s (a), then health care rationing as a general principle is completely unremarkable (and even sensible) as it already exists in Medicare, the VA system, etc., as it does with private insurers.
If it’s (b), then it’s irrelevant to bring up because the Obama proposals have no provision for this, and Obama has said he won’t include them. And contrary to what Krauthammer says, Canada and Britain don’t do health care rationing in this sense, either.