Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Health care debate winnows down to 2 or 3 major policy choices
Today (Wednesday July 15), The Washington Post gave us an editorial that sounded more like the tomes in The Washington Times. The leadoff editorial is “The Deep Pockets Mirage: House Democrats would have us believe the rich can pay for it all”, link here.
On the surface, the health care debate is turning into a Hobson’s Choice (or “two things you don’t like” as kids say). Soak the rich (play Robin Hood), or tax employer benefits, which is what the Post wants (and a lot of conservatives want, in order to fund grants for individual health insurance). But the Post also points out how the health problem is being driven by demographics: people can live longer, but only sometimes better, and use more services, while there are fewer children and workers to pay for all of it. The other third rail comes up (usually encountered on my retirement blog): “means testing.”
How I remember all the indignant chatter from the far Left in the early 1970s when I was a young man, starting my working career. It still comes to mind, and it could get personal.