Then again, I think it's mostly politics. Republicans can get some of what they want without giving up much political capital. On the other hand, Republicans need to get their names on some successful bills if they want to have a chance of winning back more seats in the future. If Democrats can claim to have fixed the system and saved a lot of money at the same time, what can Republicans run on?
Friday, June 19, 2009
A round on healthcare
In a piece of news that no doubt highlights the need for healthcare reform, healthcare costs are expected to jump 9% for companies in 2010. More on healthcare: an interesting note in the comments section at Angry Bear on Singapore. And, some thoughts on different plans, with links to more information, from ataxingmatter. E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post would prefer to have good rather than bipartisan reform. I was recently thinking about healthcare reform--Democrats (as well as many others, including health economists) claim that they can provide more care to more people while saving a lot of money. I'm not sure what problem the Republicans have with this. So I asked around, and the answer I got was the ideological problem against the concept of socialism. Not only does the argument not apply very well, but public investment hasn't been all that bad, historically. You'd think Republicans could back a single payer option considering all the horror stories of the current state of affairs, and the prospect of saving a lot of money.