I'm confused. First off, let's accept that what Bray is talking about is healthcare. The problem is that there is a plurality of voters who seem to be saying they oppose the current legislation making their way through both Houses.
On the other hand, not only do a majority of Americans want healthcare reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/curr...) but most say they are happy with their own plans. Thus it's inaccurate to say that "a voting majority of Americans apparently want their government to provide them" [with healthcare] if in fact he's referring to healthcare.
What confuses and scares me about the current legislation is that it assumes that everything that both the private and public sector in the US has done is wrong with the aim towards radical change for everyone. This ignores the multitide of things the US had done right - from healthcare innovation and research to even process innovation (e.g. Ambulatory surgical centers - an example can be seen in India though there are many in the US as well http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125875892887958111.html).
There are those who argue that the healthcare system in the US is an example of failed markets ignoring the government incentives that favors employer provided healthcare, that the US spends more per capita on public healthcare than the Canadian government does, and the rather high costs of malpractice insurance. But let's say we even accept that it is a market failure and market failure alone, isn't there an assumption here that the US government wouldn't do even worse? (Again in the context that the government already controls Medicare)
One of the basic policy arguments for public and universal healthcare is that it could encourage entrepreneurship. If that's the goal, why then does the Senate bill dismantle Health Savings Plans that effectively allow for coverage portability? Why force the additional taxes on businesses that employ more than a small handful of people - effectively discouraging hiring? Why is the CBO estimating that both plans would place an even greater healthcare burden on the economy than currently exists?
If legislators are serious about reforms, why would they first not attempt to propose changes that optimize existing spending and changes that encourage competition rather than rushing monolithic pieces of legislation that few have read or understand? It would seem that the biggest beneficiary of existing legislation is not the uninsured who may or may not end up being covered by existing legislation but the SEIU.
On the other hand, not only do a majority of Americans want healthcare reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/curr...) but most say they are happy with their own plans. Thus it's inaccurate to say that "a voting majority of Americans apparently want their government to provide them" [with healthcare] if in fact he's referring to healthcare.
What confuses and scares me about the current legislation is that it assumes that everything that both the private and public sector in the US has done is wrong with the aim towards radical change for everyone. This ignores the multitide of things the US had done right - from healthcare innovation and research to even process innovation (e.g. Ambulatory surgical centers - an example can be seen in India though there are many in the US as well http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125875892887958111.html).
There are those who argue that the healthcare system in the US is an example of failed markets ignoring the government incentives that favors employer provided healthcare, that the US spends more per capita on public healthcare than the Canadian government does, and the rather high costs of malpractice insurance. But let's say we even accept that it is a market failure and market failure alone, isn't there an assumption here that the US government wouldn't do even worse? (Again in the context that the government already controls Medicare)
One of the basic policy arguments for public and universal healthcare is that it could encourage entrepreneurship. If that's the goal, why then does the Senate bill dismantle Health Savings Plans that effectively allow for coverage portability? Why force the additional taxes on businesses that employ more than a small handful of people - effectively discouraging hiring? Why is the CBO estimating that both plans would place an even greater healthcare burden on the economy than currently exists?
If legislators are serious about reforms, why would they first not attempt to propose changes that optimize existing spending and changes that encourage competition rather than rushing monolithic pieces of legislation that few have read or understand? It would seem that the biggest beneficiary of existing legislation is not the uninsured who may or may not end up being covered by existing legislation but the SEIU.