Friday, March 31, 2006
RMN Weighs In
I have been chided by my reader (OK there are more than one) for jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting Bill Ritter's position on health insurance. The center right editors at the Rocky Mountain News seem to think I jumped the gun by thinking Ritter will expand entitlement to free health care. Indeed, they chide Ritter, gently, for not giving a hint about where he's going with his first year's top priority. They ask:
How would he do it? Appoint a commission, made up of medical, business and labor leaders. Their mandate: Expand coverage and improve access to care statewide, including in rural areas.
That's mom-and-apple-pie stuff. Before entrusting Ritter with the governor's office, voters should expect him to offer his philosophical views on the role of government and private care and individual responsibility, so they could anticipate how he might steer the policy process.
For instance, a panel with those guidelines could recommend a variety of alternatives: impose a single-payer system, dramatically boost eligibility for Medicaid, force all employers to buy health insurance, or issue vouchers to the uninsured so they can buy their own policies.
Which general direction would Ritter prefer? He hasn't said, but he has a duty to be more forthcoming as the campaign unfolds.
In my defense, just look at the four alternatives:
1) Single payer system involves massive government intrusion, increased tax burden and (if Canada is a good example) decreased services and long waits. Full socialized medicine.
2) Increased Medicaid is merely subsidizing poor peoples' non-emergency care and it necessarily involves increased government involvement and a growth in our tax burden--it is movement further down the path of socialized medicine.
3) Forcing the employers to provide medical insurance is increased taxation by another name. It also involves increased government involvement and less autonomy over business spending--less freedom because the government says so. That's actually more like fascism than socialism.
4) Vouchers for poor people will involve a higher tax burden with a little more government intrusion. Clearly that is more socialism.
Bill is a pretty good Catholic and a Democrat. Does anyone really believe he's going to back a self reliant, no further burden on tax-payers, less government involvement solution to what I see as a non-problem? Pull the other one.
How would he do it? Appoint a commission, made up of medical, business and labor leaders. Their mandate: Expand coverage and improve access to care statewide, including in rural areas.
That's mom-and-apple-pie stuff. Before entrusting Ritter with the governor's office, voters should expect him to offer his philosophical views on the role of government and private care and individual responsibility, so they could anticipate how he might steer the policy process.
For instance, a panel with those guidelines could recommend a variety of alternatives: impose a single-payer system, dramatically boost eligibility for Medicaid, force all employers to buy health insurance, or issue vouchers to the uninsured so they can buy their own policies.
Which general direction would Ritter prefer? He hasn't said, but he has a duty to be more forthcoming as the campaign unfolds.
In my defense, just look at the four alternatives:
1) Single payer system involves massive government intrusion, increased tax burden and (if Canada is a good example) decreased services and long waits. Full socialized medicine.
2) Increased Medicaid is merely subsidizing poor peoples' non-emergency care and it necessarily involves increased government involvement and a growth in our tax burden--it is movement further down the path of socialized medicine.
3) Forcing the employers to provide medical insurance is increased taxation by another name. It also involves increased government involvement and less autonomy over business spending--less freedom because the government says so. That's actually more like fascism than socialism.
4) Vouchers for poor people will involve a higher tax burden with a little more government intrusion. Clearly that is more socialism.
Bill is a pretty good Catholic and a Democrat. Does anyone really believe he's going to back a self reliant, no further burden on tax-payers, less government involvement solution to what I see as a non-problem? Pull the other one.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:28 AM 
