>Doug (and others)-- you're being played for fools if you don't understand
>what this whole upsurge in talk about "universal coverage" is all about.
>It's about mandates on individuals and Health Care Savings accounts and, at
>best, subsidized vouchers.
So TNR was lying when it said:
>It's time for the government to be much bolder, to try something
>even more far-reaching than what it attempted in the '60s: making
>health care a right, not a privilege. And doing so for everybody,
>even if that means having the government provide insurance directly.
>And Medicare isn't only popular. It's also efficient. Nearly all of
>the money that goes into the program, via taxes and the premiums
>seniors pay, goes back out to purchase actual medical services.
>Private insurance, by contrast, inevitably diverts a much greater
>share of its premium dollars to administration, marketing, and
>profits, which means less money for the beneficiaries.
>Government isn't the best way to provide all Americans with health
>security. It's the only way. And it's time for liberalism to say so
>openly.
I'd always thought that the obnoxious things about TNR's politics were right there on the page - their contempt for the left, their love of imperial power, their raving Zionism. Apparently that's not all - now you want us to believe that they're pushing for some version of national health insurance out of some convoluted scheme to protect Wal-Mart.
And is Paul Krugman too part of this conspiracy so immense?
Doug