Pollster's presentation to Dems on how to present health care issues.
How about calling it "Reward the Greedy to Care for the Needy." Insurers are reassured they won't lose; all other benefits are up for legislative negotiation.
Note that neither the Obama nor the Edwards plans are honestly more promising. None of them take private profit out of caring for sick people. As long as health care is required to serve as a source of private wealth, people who can't pay for their medical needs will get screwed. The poor just don't have the wherewithal to prime the system's pump.
I don’t think we can use the details of these plans to help us decide which of these aspirants we hope to see as President. The proper questions seem to me: Will any of them fight for some improvement? Which one is more likely to get something enacted? I don't at the moment have a personal answer to that question. Very probably, I never will.
Certainly "Reward the Greedy to Care for the Needy" is in the grand tradition of US. philanthropy: the entire non-profit sector, about 12 percent of our economy, runs on that premise through the practice of tax deductions for charitable giving.
No comments:
Post a Comment