The battle of health care reform comes down to the question, "Who do you trust the least?"
If you don't trust insurance companies, you support public option. That would put pressure on the insurance companies to offer better deals.
If you trust government even less than you trust insurance companies, you can picture government increasing, not decreasing, the problem. Today's problems would be joined by a whole set of problems created by the government.
It's a simple equation. How does government convince skeptical people that government can do better? That might be a better focus of discussion than all the tacts taken against health care reform protesters in the last month.
2 comments:
There is trust, sure.
But there is also the structural question of where the line of regulation stops.
Do we have to slog through all of Atlas Shrugged, or can our Constitution be resurrected and put to good use?
There is more to it than just trust. As I see it, the issue is whether I can spend my own money as I see fit. I do want to be robbed by either the insurance companies or the government.
As smitty1e put it, we need to resurrect our Constitution. That will get the government out of our health care.
We also need to understand that corporations, labor unions, NGOs, political parties or any big organization can be organized into a special interest group. Our best defense against such special interests is to keep our government's powers limited. That way such organizations cannot use our government's powers either to take advantage of us or to stifle competition.
If we want inexpensive health care, we need to promote competition. To increase competition, Congress can allow insurers to compete across state borders and implement tort reform.
Increasing competition does not require us to let Obama decide when granny dies.
Post a Comment