« The House Bill Is A Terrible Bill For Medical Care And The Economy. Part 1 | Main | The House Bill Is A Terrible Bill For Medical Care And The Economy. Part 3 »

Comments

"The Obama/Pelosi plan is a government takeover of the U.S. Healthcare system."

Seems to me that you're writing for an audience that already has the same opinions you do. So if you're just trying to preach to the choir, never mind.

But.

Statements like the above pretty much cause you to lose any credibility in the eyes of serious correspondents interested in policy. I'd ordinarily ask you to explain or substantiate such a claim, but it's right up there with: "You know who else liked government run health care? Hitler." It's such a vapid and disingenuous claim that it's not worthy of argument.

"By creating yet another massive entitlement program, President Obama will dramatically expand the federal deficit."

Here's another example of sloppy thinking (charitably assuming it's not deliberate dishonesty). Both the House and the Senate bill are deficit-reducing, and not by small amounts. I suppose you can argue that the CBO is biased or the asssumptions are wrong or that Congress will spend more money than is budgeted or something -- but you don't make that argument, do you? You just make a simple decarative statement which is directly counter-factual with no explanation or qualification. Furthermore, you seem confused as to what an "entitlement" is. There is no new entitlement created in the HCR bills. There are subsidies and tax credits, and I suppose if you redefine "entitlement" as "anytime the government pays for something" then that could be correct. That definition, however, is inconsistent with the common policy usage of that term.

"Consumer healthcare insurance premiums will be means tested"

Actually the premiums are not means tested; they are actuarially set and community rated. The subsidies are means tested, which is a good thing. I hope that even you would admit that if you are going to subsidize, that less needy families should recieve lower levels of support.

"If consumers have to pay for their healthcare insurance premiums with after tax dollars the real price will be at least 30% higher."

Are you unaware that in the current system that consumers buying individual policies already are doing so with after-tax dollars?

I'd go on with the other bits of inaccuracy and demagoguery in this piece and the others on this blog, but I'm not sure that there's any point.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Http://stan.feld.com
My Photo

Subscribe in
NewsGator Online

Subscribe in
Bloglines

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner