Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowTo Bohanon and Styring:
Your column left me scratching my head [Bohanon & Styring: Widely cited CBO scores have their shortcomings, July 10].
Was it really about the CBO or a veiled shot at the Affordable Care Act? While Republicans complain and offer no solution, for eight years the ACA has provided health care to millions. Decent health care for all gives everyone a better shot at education and, in turn, the job market, which makes our nation stronger economically. Right?
Why not just tell us your views instead of concocting a kooky, sarcastic, and cynical comparison of how the CBO would analyze the economic effect of the end of slavery to the CBO analysis of the removal of the individual mandate?
Then you went into some hard, technical economic analysis: “If we remove the penalty for not buying government-approved insurance, some people will not buy the insurance.” Hmm, stellar.
How about telling us how you think those uninsured people’s medical costs will get paid? Or do you believe they get no health care because they made the economic free choice to not purchase insurance? I believe we, as a nation, have more compassion and respect for human life than that.
Like it or not, we are headed for a single-payer national health care system. It is the only approach that makes sense. Health insurance and medical care do not and cannot work as free markets. The costs and risks are too great and unpredictable. Like interstate highways, justice, and national defense, the most effective and efficient way to provide health care for all is through a national government program paid for out of tax revenue.
__________
Pete Donahoe
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.