Repeal is losing appeal
The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll for July shows that the new health care reform law is gaining in popularity, with 50 percent of respondents holding a favorable view and 35 percent disliking it. Two months ago, the “unfavorables” held the lead, 44 percent to 41 percent.
So did popularity rise because whining declined? Or did whining decline because popularity rose?
Guess we’ll find out as national elections heat up. I expect to see more reform foes trying to finesse the issue by wanting to keep some of the provisions, rather than calling for outright repeal.
Which ones to keep? The most popular ones, of course. Insurers can’t turn down people for pre-existing conditions. Young adults can be added to parents’ health plans. The doughnut hole for Medicare prescription drug coverage would be closed.
The targets for repeal will remain the mandate to buy insurance and the taxes that finance the changes. But without the mandate, people could wait until they got ill or injured before buying insurance. Without the taxes, the budget deficit would balloon.
It’s simple to build a popular health care system, but it’s impossible to make it work.
Different destinations. Some candidates are touting a mixture of health care provisions that didn’t make it into the reform plan: Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, reduce insurance mandates, tort reform, etc.
In short, it’s what congressional Republicans proposed in November. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed that plan and found that it would leave 52 million people without coverage by 2019.
I’m pretty sure that if the architects of the current law wanted to leave that many people uncovered, they could’ve hatched a lower-cost plan. Or just done nothing.
Dodge City. The ethics charges against U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., look awfully damning. He could sure use a lenient panel. Maybe he can get a change of venue to Boise.
The D.c. Shuffle. “Tax cuts are good for the economy.”
“So is spending.”
“We can’t afford all this spending.”
“ We can’t afford the tax cuts.”
“We need to cut spending.”
“Spending is good for the economy.”
“So are tax cuts.”
“ So let’s cut taxes and increase spending.”
“We can’t afford that.”
“ So let’s cut spending and increase taxes.”
“Tax cuts are good for the economy.”
“ But what about the deficit?”
“We need to cut spending.”
“ That will hurt the economy.”
“There must be some way out of this.”
“We could compromise.”
“You go first.”
“OK, I agree to some spending cuts.”
“I agree to some tax cuts.”
“You mean tax hikes?”
“I signed a pledge to never do that.”
“You signed a pledge to never compromise?”
“No, to never raise taxes.”
“ So how can we compromise?”
“I can proclaim deep concern for the deficit.”
“I could do the same.”
“We could hold a joint press conference.”
“ It’s a deal!”
“Next problem?”
Keeping up appearances. On a party-line vote, the special Idaho House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, was not remiss in continuing to work on tax legislation related to appealing tax judgments as he battled state and federal officials over back taxes.
I can’t believe I just typed that.
Here is state Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, explaining it: “I think we have to be careful here in terms of singling out a particular piece of legislation that Rep. Hart may be involved with, unless it pertains to him only.”
It is extremely rare for any legislation to pertain to one person, so this calls into question the need for an ethics committee.
Raybould also said, “I think we’ve got to be careful or we’re not going to be able to have anyone involved in our legislative capacity except people who don’t have family and don’t have jobs.”
It isn’t anyone’s job to escape taxes.
State Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, had this to say: “I hope if nothing else that comes out of this, that it’s a wake-up call for all of us to be very careful about our appearances.”
It appears that the sole reason for the formation of the ethics panel is for the appearance of propriety. Actual propriety is optional.