If the will of the people is throwing more of their money at government bureaucrats while surrendering high quality healthcare for a welfare clinic model, then we shall be properly served. But the Bamster appears to be hedging his bet just a tad in anticipation of getting bitch-slapped by the Republican minority leadership.
If I Don't Get It All, I'll Take a Foot in the Door
The stuff he won't touch is the stuff which would make a difference. Tort reform that would reduce the practice of preventive medicine would be effective in lowering costs. Simple, one shot to help with the problem. Nothing will be a panacea for total cure but tort reform would be a giant step. Imagine not having to watch all those mesothelioma lawyer ads on TV! "If you suffered injury or death, please call Joe Bagdonutz to represent you."
Throw in a removal of restrictions on selling healthcare insurance across state lines and you magically get free-market competition which drives prices to actual costs of doing business and keeps profit margins reasonable without being excessive. How logical is that?
But, we get this from the Prince of Darkness:
It would do that by requiring insurance companies to allow people up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' health plans, and by modestly expanding two federal-state health programs, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, one person said.
Nothing spells progressive policy like programs of dependency. A 26-year old should be self-sufficient with a stable job, his/her own home and probably a family. They should be five years out of college or nine years out of high school and on a career path. But The Man seeks to keep them in the welfare mindset. If they never learn to do for themselves because mommy and daddy do it, then conversion to government dependency is an easy step.
Medicaid and CHIP are two warts on the butt of Medicare that simultaneously suck the funds out of the seniors program and saddle the states with a huge budget burden. Expanding it to more people raises cost and once again encourages a perspective that government will give them all things. It isn't a good goal.
The President's always-on-message press spokesman, Robert Gibbs, offered this misreading of the public mood and spinning of the possible outcomes:
Gibbs argued that it would be wrong to infer from the Massachusetts election that the public does not want any health care reform. Rather, he said, the American people want to see cooperation and action on Capitol Hill.
"I don't think the American people want us to walk away, because they do know this -- if we don't do anything, their premiums will go up," he said. "If we do nothing, health care spending will skyrocket. That's what we have to prevent."
Yes, the Massachusetts slap-down was not a refusal to embrace healthcare as most people clearly said it was. And, failure for government to act and raise spending (hence taxes) by a trillion or two will cause premiums to go up! Excuse me, Gibbsie, put if I have to pay a lot more in taxes, my premiums have most assuredly gone up. Is that so difficult to comprehend?