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."
Where did this come from? Who is perpetuating the doofus argument? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, 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.
ReplyDelete