In 2008, we were told that each American taxpayer had to spend thousands on bank bailouts in order to avoid utter disaster. We were not supposed to object, because a few thousand is a cheap price to pay for disaster avoidance.
In early 2009, we were told that each American taxpayer had to spend thousands on fiscal stimulus in order to avoid utter disaster. We were not supposed to object, because a few thousand is a cheap price to pay for disaster avoidance.
Now we are told that each American taxpayer has to spend thousands (? amount to be unveiled later) on government health care in order to avoid utter disaster. We were not supposed to object, because a few thousand is a cheap price to pay for disaster avoidance.
We are lucky to have the White House to save us from so many disasters!
[update June 21: The Tribune used a blurb from here. I think that means somebody is still reading this blog, but maybe the Trib has a robot that finds these things (cool!)]
Are you suggesting that health care is not a disaster?
ReplyDeleteNot arguing that the Admin's approach is the right one, but even if we forget about the uninsured and rising cost of indigent care, what about the state and federal burden's of Medicare and Medicaid.
At the state level Medicaid already seems like a disaster to me. The projections at the Federal level don't look pretty.
Perhaps, spending more money is not the answer, but it does look like there is a real problem