Posted: 26 August 2024 at 2:39am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
"Ah, and a link to a Wall Street Journal Op Ed."
Ignore the op-ed. That's not why I posted it. Watch the video. Harris in her own words talking about price controls.
"However, it doesn't mean that private insurance companies would be going away, it just allows people the option to obtain health insurance through the public Medicare plan or through a Medicare plan offered by a private insurer."
This was the position taken by several Dems. The counter argument was that private insurance carriers would be unable to compete against a tax subsidized government plan. Hence, their elimination would be the natural result of a single payer system; not necessarily the intended consequence.
I think Harris's goal is laudable, but the ideas that having the government make healthcare decisions instead of private insurance carriers will actually reduce bureaucracy, or that big government can provide the same services at a lower cost are laughable. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that both Sanders's and Harris's plans would cost roughly 11X the amount of the Affordable Care Act.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2024/07/25/if-you -like-your-health-care-plan-will-kamala-harris-let-you-keep- it/
So even if the direct out of pocket cost of healthcare premiums would be less under her plan, we would be paying the difference elsewhere.
"A series of arguments have been presented for voting against Harris and for the racist rapist."
Not by me. Frankly, I find both to be completely unpalatable for different reasons, so I haven't decided what I'll do yet. But criticizing the bad ideas of one does not equal support for the other.
Edited by John Wickett on 26 August 2024 at 2:41am
|