First, burn it, then, stupid, keep it simple

The House and Senate health care bills give us

an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:

–You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.

–You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age.

Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

–You’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — percentages picked out of a hat — that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle-class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.

Charles Krauthammer has a solution:

The bill . . . should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

Then do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.

Which means zero in on tort reform, interstate buying and selling of health insurance, and taxation of employer-provided health insurance.

Trial lawyers don’t like the one, the left doesn’t like the other, which obviates need for public option, and unions don’t like the last

The lawyers are big-bucks people who give heavily to Dems, the left we have always with us, unions love big government, by whom most of their members are employed.

“Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative,” says K. in today’s Chi Trib.

The problem is that the Democrats have chosen the worst possible method — a $1 trillion new entitlement of stupefying arbitrariness and inefficiency.

Better to “attack . . . inefficiencies . . . one by one — tort reform, interstate purchasing and taxing employee benefits.”

A bill that did that would be shorter — 20 not 2,000 pages — and pay for insurance for the uninsured “without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury.”

And don’t get him started on the economic recklessness part.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Nicholas Stix  On 11/30/2009 at 2:04 PM

    My vote is for no “reform.” The whole point of this undertaking, like others from the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama,” is to nationalize an industry (autos, finance, energy, and newspapers are on the way, too), and thereby extend his power. The “public option” is just a Trojan horse, with which to destroy the private insurance industry.

    As for Kraut’s “moral imperative” to insure the uninsured, there is no such imperative, and that is not what “Obama” seeks to do, anyway. He seeks, through health care, education, and housing boondoggles, to suck every last penny of assets from the white middle and upper-middle classes. And that’s only the beginning. (He’ll leave much of the white rich alone, at first. They are busy bribing him, thinking that that will save them, while he destroys all whites below them.)

    Who are these “uninsured” that he plans to “force” to pay insurance? One-third to one-half are illegal Hispanic aliens. Much of the rest are blacks. These people have never paid for health care (they just walk into emergency rooms, get treated, and ignore the bill, if they are even sent one), and have no intention of starting now. Critics have pointed out that it is unconstitutional to force anyone to pay for health insurance. But “Obama” never intended to force blacks and Hispanics to pay for anything.

    I am reminded here of Chuck Schumer’s dodge a few years ago. He said that we should give illegal aliens driver’s licenses, because then they will be insured. Like so much that comes out of Schumer’s mouth, his proposal was a non-sequitur: How would giving an illegal a driver’s license cause him to buy auto insurance? (Schumer had not proposed a requirement that a driver prove that he had already paid for insurance, before being issued a license.)

    Charlie Kraut says, “The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system… and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury,” but nothing is going to “provide the funds” for over 40 million people. The money isn’t there. Besides, that’s not “insuring the uninsured,” it’s an additional welfare program. The only way the uninsured can become insured is if they purchase insurance, not if the government confiscates ever more money from the shrinking white middle and upper-middle classes.

    Kraut’s ideas about tort reform, interstate health insurance sales, and taxing insurance benefits as a form of income are good in themselves, but not as a means to fund yet another government boondoggle. If the savings from reforms don’t go into the pockets of the citizen tax base, why should the latter support reform?

    Kraut’s method here is all too familiar to watchers of neocons: Instead of simply saying “no” to state power grabs, he comes up with a more clever form of state power grab than the socialists/communists.

    As for “Obama’s” intentions, consider this general precedent: Once in 2007 or 2008, when asked about reparations, he said that “reparations” as conceived would only be a one-time deal, and thus would let whites off too easily. He wanted something, in terms of increased, continuous education payments. We know from the past generation that more education spending does not equal better cognitive outcomes, and we know from “Obama’s” history with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that he and his terrorist comrade, Bill Ayers, spread $159 million around to their incompetent cronies, refused to fund people with positive ideas, and that their idea of ed “reform” is to have kids taught communist/racial socialist slogans. We need less education funding, not more. Heck, we need less government funding, in general.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: