However, I do not favor the doofus argument for health care.
If I understand it correctly, the doofus argument runs this way:
Able: We should reduce health care costs.Baker: All things being equal, that's a good idea.
Able: Well, therefore, we should extend affordable health care to 30-45 million who can't afford regular health care now.
Baker: That's a good idea. But that will cost money, won't it? So that won't reduce health care costs, will it?.
Able: Yes, it will.
Baker: How so?
Able: Well, we'll pay for the health care for the 30-45 million by reducing the amount spent on everyone else.
Baker: I see. But couldn't we do that without extending ordinary health care to the 30-45 million people?
Able: No.
Baker: Why not?
Able: Because to reduce health care costs and give the 30-45 million people affordable health care, we will have a government-subsidized health care program. That will drive down health care costs for everyone.
Baker: I see, I think. But, Able, I have a question.
Able: Yes? What is it?
Baker: Couldn't we have a government-subsidized health care program without extending it to the 30-45 million?
Able: Baker, I lose patience with you; you're such a dimwit. The answer is, "Obviously not. Excuse me. Now I have to get to get to work at saving Medicare."
2 comments:
Where did this come from? Who is perpetuating the doofus argument? Just curious.
Anonymous, my confidential sources are Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi & Pres. Barack Obama & other such talkative people. I'm afraid you'll have to dig out the videos and newspaper reports yourself. I favor universal health care. I just think the public should be told that extending health care to everyone will almost certainly cost money.
Post a Comment