The burden of proof should have been on the Democrats to explain how removing incentive will cause more people to pay for their own insurance, rather than the more likely consequence that a growing percentage of people will end up on the dole — which means more money must be confiscated from more people.
Most importantly, old Ebenezer could tell you that nobody needs health insurance, they need health — and that not everybody wants that, at least not at all times. What kind of life would it be to never enjoy the occasional life-shortening excess? (A socialist utopian one, actually. But never mind.)
Another way to put this: Lack of insurance does not imply lack of health. Repeat that with me. Those X people who do not have insurance are not all unhealthy. Besides, in those times of lack of health, nobody — even those lacking formal insurance policies — is ever turned away from Marley & Scrooge Memorial.
This charity is paid for by other people, like the new government entitlement, but the costs are spread around more evenly than by direct confiscation. The reason is that taxation requires an overhead — a bureaucracy — to administer. All experience with government suggests that the overhead will add a significant additional cost.
Once more, the burden of proof was on those who proposed the new mandate that their innovations were more cost effective. We have seen no arguments — but plenty of bald assertions — that they are so.
However, none of these are supported by chief elf Reid, who tacitly acknowledges that the new program will cost more by starting his tax now, but will not provide benefits for several years. This of course means that the taxes must be increased sometime after the benefits kick in, just to maintain status quo.
And it’s rational to suppose they’ll increase even more given all experience of the growth of entitlement programs.
The Democrats’ gift is one that will keep taking for years and years and years.
Ho ho ho.