I wrote that the floor of the congress during a presidential address is the wrong format for calling the president a liar. Well this is the right format and he's a liar. Here is Yuval Levin with one of the clearest anaysis of the substance of the speech I've seen:
Permanent perfection, in this kind of technocratic vision, would surely require getting every fine detail just right. Yet Obama did not seem to be advancing a very detailed plan, but rather championing some vague generalities. And when you line these generalities up, they form a very peculiar and implausible picture. It will cost $900 billion, involve no tax increases for the middle class and no Medicare benefit cuts for the elderly, but not add a dime to the deficit. The basic prerequisites for risk-based insurance will be rendered illegal, but the public is assured that insurance arrangements need not change-or rather that they will only improve.
To try to sneak these glaring contradictions past his listeners, the president engaged in some familiar misdirection. He said the government would not force people to lose their existing insurance. But the question of displacement is not about force: employers currently provide insurance not because they are forced to do so (they are not) but because a combination of policy and labor market pressures lead them to choose to do so. Change those pressures and coverage arrangements will change for millions.
He insisted that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," but those dollars would be used to fund insurance that would pay for abortion, and new rules would require more insurers to pay for it. He insisted the public plan would not be subsidized by the public (though he then compared it to public universities, which are subsidized by the public). But the problem with that plan is that it would have regulatory advantages and negotiating power that would allow it to price private insurers out of the market, not that it would be directly subsidized in ways its competitors were not.
The rest is here: NRO.
1 comments:
At yesterday's prime-time speech, President Obama made the case that it is "morally wrong" when thousands of Americans die every year due to lack of medical coverage, and that's the reason why Government should fix this "morally wrong" situation.
Since when is the Government's role to solve "moral" problems? That's the purpose of churches, charities and other civil organizations. Government's role is to enforce the law. And while "property" is a Constitutional right, "universal health care" is nowhere mentioned by the Constitution.
Besides, it is equally wrong for the Federal Government to steal taxpayers' money in order to buy votes of certain sectors of society.
Is it "morally wrong" when people die because of lack of health care? YES.
Is it "morally wrong" to loot taxpayers? YES.
Should Government address "moral principles"? NO.
Post a Comment