We need this.
It's not arbitrary.
Our health care system is broken--and badly.
Millions, literally tens of millions of Americans don't have health care and more lose it, each day.
People die in America because they don't have and can't afford health care.
Further proof of our needs and the problems:
Patient's plea makes the best case for health care reform
Catholic nuns urge passage of Obama's health bill
It's the right thing to do.
We need it, as I said.
Now is the time.
Let's get this passed.
Please support health care reform.
It is patently not a "government takeover" of our health care system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Note to the Elephant Negativos... nowhere national healthcare exists did the sky fall. Just costs and rates of demise. Healthcare should not be an industry.
How is the current plan massively different than Massachusetts plan that has raised costs while still not covering everyone?
Don't the details matter, or do we just need to pass something called universal health care, even if it merely cements the influence of the healthcare industry in place?
From Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman's New York Times Op/Ed piec:
The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.
Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses)...
The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.
Which brings me to the third myth: that health reform is fiscally irresponsible. How can people say this given Congressional Budget Office predictions — which, as I’ve already argued, are probably too pessimistic — that reform would actually reduce the deficit? Critics argue that we should ignore what’s actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.
But this isn’t an argument against Obamacare, it’s a declaration that we can’t control Medicare costs no matter what. And it also flies in the face of history: contrary to legend, past efforts to limit Medicare spending have in fact “stuck,” rather than being withdrawn in the face of political pressure.
So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Original link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?scp=7&sq=Paul%20Krugman&st=cse
Post a Comment