Redux, you've been on the defensive for too long. I'm in favor of health care reform.
But you still didn't explain the thing that was confusing me. The news article stated that
Quote:
|
Many middle-class families who'd be required to buy coverage would still find the premiums a stretch, even with government aid. A new federal fund to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash.
|
These two sentences seem to be non-sequiturs to me. Say you have a hypothetical middle class family, the Smiths, and they currently have no insurance (thus, they fall into the category outlined in sentence #1, those who would be required to now purchase coverage under the new plan. If the Smiths have no health problems, then yes, for them,
right now, they will be paying more money and that will presumably make them sad. (Forget whether it's better for them in the long run, because that's not important right now.) But sentence #2 starts talking about people with health problems. If the Smiths have health problems, and have no insurance (as we inferred from sentence #1,) then they are currently paying a shit-ton out of pocket for their medical expenses. The new government plan that they are "required" to buy into will be a good deal for them, because it in all likelihood will cost less than their current health problems are costing them.
So why do we need a temporary fund to give these people coverage, when they will already be able to buy the coverage for less than they're currently spending on their health problems? Unless the assumption is that they have no insurance, and are not treating their health problems in any way, and also have no intention of getting them treated under the government plan either. In which case letting them continue to choose to live with their health problems doesn't seem to require a special federal fund.