Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Because while I don't think Kerry's plan is perfect, it is pretty good, and infinitely better than the Bush one, which will just give money to pharmaceutical and insurance companies straight out of our ("our" meaning anyone earning less than $200,000 per year) pockets. And, if the Medicare Modernization Act is any indication, a Bush plan will make things worse, especially in terms of choices and creating a sustainable health system.
The big criticism of Kerry's plan is that it will cost a ton. Well, duh-uh. Healthcare, even without today's overinflated prices, is expensive. The trick, that the BushCo and also even many more reasonable conservatives either refuse to realize or simply don't know, is that We're. Already. Paying for it. We spend two to three times (in terms of total percent GDP) what places like France and Britain and Canada pay for their universal healthcare systems. Moving to a nationalized plan, like Kerry's, just means we pay our healthcare by way of the government, not directly to insurance companies. (his plan does NOT nationalize insurance, it keeps the private system we already have for FEHBP and Medicare)
A universal health plan will cost less, in real terms, than what we have now, because it not only reduces costs (via a healthier population and single administrative system, plus taking over the duties of and consolidating existing programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP)
See here for a simplified explanation of why a single-payer plan (again, not what Kerry has in mind, but his plan is in that direction).
< /rant du jour >