2009/12/28
Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Senate health bill: “The insurance companies are going to make out like bandits; the drug companies are going to make out like bandits… Nothing was done that didn’t serve the big money interests.”
Scott Gottlieb (New York Post): “The plan creates a single national health-insurance policy. Consumers’ only real option is to trade higher co-pays for lower premiums. But we’ll all get the same package of benefits established by a series of new agencies and an ‘insurance czar’ seated in Washington.”
Paul Krugman (New York Times): “There are three main groups of critics” of the Senate health bill: “the crazy right,” “the Bah Humbug … fiscal scolds,” and the uncompromising “progressives.” [Those on the right are either insane or morally defective, while those on the left are merely mistaken.]
George Will (Washington Post): “Reid had two advantages — the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles. Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states.
Most of what Krugman writes is one continuous argument ad hominem.
Sen. Bernie Sanders laments that health reform might still allow insurers and drug makers to make a buck off their efforts. Then Paul Krugman dismisses those who worry about the cost of creating sweeping middle-class entitlement as “the Bah Humbug … fiscal scolds.”
If you take both these arguments in tandem there is a common theme! Backers believe insurers and providers should work for free; while taxpayers should not complain about the tax burden. In other words, we (collectively) should all be willing to sacrifice our time and effort for what liberal elites believe is good for us.
Krugman reflects the views of most of the elite media. He is just one of the few who is frank enough or stupid enough to admit it. Although it is surprising to find someone in academia who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is either evil or crazy.
american government is there to care for amcniears, that is y we have a government in the first house. i don’t despise public who like god, i despise public who reckon they are only excellent for following a certain god. anyone who chooses a religion makes a genteel extent of life excellent. anyone who doesn’t follow the same path, is evil. when u top out a religion u are adage, i am excellent, u r evil. i despise public who call me evil, i don’t despise public who like god.
If tax spender money is used in ealhthcare to initiation a system akin to NHS that means the government has more power into what goes on and controls doctors, prices etc.This is also VERY terrible for the system as public (so long as it’s not their money life spent) won’t hesitate or be alert as to which air force they buy. This means a significantly privileged tax rate, dictated health benefit and poor quality too! I’m not against universal health care, I’m FOR excellent health benefit.