A New Era of Civility?
This is Matt Holt, commenting on the Capitol Hill briefing at which a number of right-of-center think tanks proposed an alternative to ObamaCare:
Let’s be crystal clear. The main part of this bill is a transfer of subsidies so that there’s some shot that 50 million people may get some kind of insurance coverage. With “Repeal and Replace”, that won’t happen.
But I guess most of those people are young, poor and a different skin color to most of the Heritage/AEI/NCPA/Cato gang. So screw ’em.
Don’t hold back, Matt. Tell us how you really feel.
Create an Exchange where small firms will dump their workers. Offer unsustainable subsidies that are rising twice as fast as income. Then, when the costs climb to the stratosphere, maybe the idea is that people will finally throw up their hands and accept a Medicare-for-All single-payer system.
The new civility: When you can’t argue on the substantive points, accuse your opponent of being mean, racist, and stupid.
Agree with John. Tell us how you really feel, Matt. Don’t pull any punches.
Who is Matt Holt?
Perhaps Matt Holt and John Goodman should sit next to each other at tonight’s State of the Union address…
The subsidies in the exchanges to purchase health insurance aren’t enough to compensate for the increased cost of the insurance policies that will be available. Thus, it is not clear that there will be a net increase, rather than decrease, in the number insured. (Excluding those enrolled in Medicaid — Congress just could declare that everyone who isn’t covered by private insurance is “deemed” to be covered by Medicaid. Problem solved, no more uninsured!)
I want to second Juan O’Malley’s question.
Now, if there were no conflict there would be no drama, and life would get pretty durn dull.
From the article:
This isn’t a comprehensive plan as much a series of generic bullet points that need a lot more clarity and detail.
Posted by: MG | Jan 17, 2011 10:39:04 PM
I agree.
Ekik. All of the summary points link directly or indirectly to longer NCPA publications that spell out in some detail what rational reform would look like.
They cannot defend their favorite legislation on its own merits. No, it depends on sneering at conservative orgs and of course ends with an epithet.