Re: Bush Poll Ratings Before Speech Fall to Nixon's Level (Actual Headline)

Oh Yeah! He's looking gooood!....Joe

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=a.aveoiqdgBU

http://www.digg.com/politics/Bush_Poll_Ratings_Before_Speech_Fall_to_Nixon_s_Level_Actual_Headline

"Juba" <juba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:l2d84.v1p.17.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"What's really striking about Mr. Bush's remarks, however, is the tone.
The stuff about providing "incentives" to buy insurance, the sneering
description of good coverage as "gold plated," is right-wing think-tank
jargon. In the past Mr. Bush's speechwriters might have found less
offensive language; now, they're not even trying to hide his fundamental
indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans."

------------------------------------------------------
Bush's Health Reforms Won't Help

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 22, 2007
New York Times

President Bush's Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and
officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in
tomorrow's State of the Union address. Mr. Bush's proposal won't go
anywhere. But it's still worth looking at his remarks, because of what
they say about him and his advisers.

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should "treat health insurance
more like home ownership." He went on to say that "the current tax code
encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your
mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides
a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance."

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be
uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment
instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience, which most people
endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don't need an
"incentive" to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting
insurance possible.

Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can't
afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost
worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

Of those uninsured who aren't low-income, many can't get coverage because
of pre-existing conditions - everything from diabetes to a long-ago case
of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won't solve their problem.

The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured
are the people we're least concerned about - affluent, healthy Americans
who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might
induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process -
whaddya know - giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax
break.

While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax
increase - not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too
much health insurance. The tax code, he said, "unwisely encourages workers
to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that
insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage
they need."

Again, wow. No economic analysis I'm aware of says that when Peter chooses
a good health plan, he raises Paul's premiums. And look at the
condescension. Will all those who think they have "gold plated" health
coverage please raise their hands?

According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with
relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we're not
talking about the wealthy; we're talking about ordinary workers who have
managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.

What's driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but
utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health
care is that people have too much insurance - that there would be large
cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses
out of pocket.

The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be
pushed out of employment-based health insurance - admittedly a deeply
flawed system - into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster
on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people
who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the
individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies
dedicated to weeding out "high risk" applicants - and keeping them
uninsured.

I'm somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance
market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer
policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these
plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market
needs fixing.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free
market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems.

What's really striking about Mr. Bush's remarks, however, is the tone. The
stuff about providing "incentives" to buy insurance, the sneering
description of good coverage as "gold plated," is right-wing think-tank
jargon. In the past Mr. Bush's speechwriters might have found less
offensive language; now, they're not even trying to hide his fundamental
indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans.

----------------------------------------------

--
Juba
www.masterjuba.com



.