Even our author Roy claims he wants some form of universal health care, and no doubt many progressives pushing the bill wanted to get to single-payer. This blog does not support universal care. Roy finishes with:
‘But in the end, I’m glad that we’re finally having the intellectually honest argument about Obamacare that we should have been having all along. No, Obamacare won’t decrease the cost of your insurance by $2,500 a year. Indeed, it could raise it by that much. No, under Obamacare, you can’t keep your plan, if you like your plan. Instead, you’ll be forced to buy a costlier plan with add-ons that you neither need nor want.
If you’re a leftie, you likely think that’s a good thing. But you should have said so all along. The fact is that Obamacare was sold to the public under false pretenses, and the chickens are now coming home to roost.’
As always, the Lefty, progressive ideological goal is collectivism on the road to impossible ideals.
Michael Cannon at CATO notes the following:
‘All of that supports my thesis: officials at Covered California, like those running all the other Obamacare exchanges, owe their power and their paychecks to Obamacare. They will fight to preserve the law, even if they have to deliberately mislead the public.’
There’s a lot of money sloshing around, your money ultimately, being distributed to set up agencies and exchanges to purportedly serve all people under the ideals.
I’ll still take Chicago school law/economics thinker Richard Epstein’s suggestion:
‘As I have noted before, there is only one type of reform that can make progress in meeting the three goals of a sensible health care system: cost reduction, quality improvements, and public access. That reform requires massive deregulation of the many market impediments that are already in place. Lower the costs, drop the excessive mandates, and thin out administrative costs, and people will flock back to the system voluntarily.’
That’s a start.
Addition: Peter Suderman has more here. Young and healthy people, rich or not, are expected to pay higher premiums. The liberty sacrificed and penalized by law (er…taxation), is what seems to me to be one of the purposes of the law, and about which I disagree.
Related On This Site: From The New England Journal Of Medicine Via CATO: ‘The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate’From If-Then Knots: Health Care Is Not A Right…But Then Neither Is Property?… From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”…Sally Pipes At Forbes: ‘A Plan That Leads Health Care To Nowhere’…From AEI: ‘Study: ‘Obama Healthcare Reform Raising Costs, Forcing Workers Out Of Existing Plans’
Covering the law and economics from a libertarian perspective: Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution Journal: ‘Three Cheers for Income Inequality’…Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution: ‘Death By Wealth Tax’…Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution: ‘The Obamacare Quaqmire’