|
But on what principal does he differentiate it from car insurance or other instances of government mandating purchases of private insurance without provision of a publicly managed option? I guess I just find the hyperbole stupid, and the principal on which he is apparently standing empty since a week ago when he thought the Medicare buy-in was part of it he was ok with me being forced to buy health insurance from private companies under penalty of law (he, being 50 now would have been nearly ready to qualify by the time things kicked in).
And I guess I see his stupidity more in his "all or nothing" approach to it. Everybody knew when all of this started that a public option was almost certainly an impossible achievement. Yes, for negotiating reasons you have to start there but it was never realistic. And sticking out the lower lip and stomping around and gnashing the teeth just looks stupid (to me).
And the nonsensical fixation on going through reconciliation just strikes me as more fantasy. Somehow they've decided that the 20% benefit is more important than the 80% benefit and so are willing to sacrifice the latter to get the former, assuming it even worked enough to get the latter.
I just can't help but be reminded of how much Ted Kennedy came to regret scuttling the deal that was reached on health care reform 30 years ago because it didn't get him everything he wanted soon enough. I've not yet seen any of the left opposition make a compelling case for how the proposal is worse than the status quo, simply that it lacks important parts of what they want.
I agree that cost containment is important (and apparently the far left argument is that the uninsured should only get health care if it can be provided cheaply enough). I also agree it is important to make sure that everybody has access health care. Personally, I think having the latter will create pressures making the former much more likely. And getting both at the same time just stacks too many interests against the entirety.
|