« No One Is Above The People | Main | $25 A Day » 20 Jul 2009 07:29 am Why Not Run On Coverage?by Patrick Appel Clive Crook isn't optimistic about health care reform controlling costs: We will get a substantial increase in
coverage, which is good, but without meaningful action on cost control,
and the necessary revenue will be raised, if at all, in stupid ways. One thing that surprised me about Obama's statement today was that he
continues to emphasize cost control, as opposed to wider access, as the
principal driver of reform. It is obvious by now that Congress has no
stomach at all for cost control, and is arguing mainly over how to
raise the taxes necessary to pay for wider coverage. Obama's selling
proposition, so to speak, is therefore beside the point; moreover this
rhetorical defect is obvious, which is not like him at all.
...What would be so wrong with
saying we must have health reform to address economic insecurity--note
this is not just about the 40m uninsured; people with insurance are
worried about losing it--and that the price in higher taxes is worth
paying. It happens to be true, after all. That should count for
something. Is it really so hopeless a platform? Marc explains their logic:
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e201157125d3b7970c Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Why Not Run On Coverage?' |
