Reality check

Sans bogus Rassmussen, three Pollster.com charts:








Andrew guesses on health-care:

It's the worst selling job he's done in a long time. I can't tell what's in it, not in it, what he's for, what he's against. My best bet is that Obama's insurance reform will end up requiring big tax hikes for people like me (I can live with them if they bring real health improvements to sick people) for a modest ability to get insurance for almost anyone regardless of previous conditions. That's a good thing. Not a radical thing. And won't do anything much about costs, let alone allow a public option. It will be like the climate change bill, a very modest, largely toothless start with very modest potential to affect change.

Well, let me just collect my thoughts on reforms I would like to see:

-No denials for pre-existing conditions. This will raise costs for everyone else (supply and demand!), but there is a moral argument for it and most people seem on board, so I'm going with the flow.
-Health insurance exchanges open to any individual who wants to participate, with their employers paying the same portion as any benefits they offer.
-End tax breaks for employer health benefits. These distort the market in favor of the well-off and the employed, which is a really, really bad idea if you expect the poor and unemployed to be able to afford coverage. The revenue raised could be used to subsidize care for the poor/unemployed with a voucher or tax-credit system.
-No loss of benefits when someone is unemployed. They should be able to keep paying for the same coverage from savings or by collecting unemployment.

Reforms I'm against:

-Public/government-run insurance.
-Entitlement expansion using revenue from surtaxes on the rich. If we're going to raise such taxes, that money ought to go toward closing the deficit, not further spending and subsidy. But either way, I sure don't think we should be doing this in a downturn. Wait for recovery, then if you want to raise taxes to close the deficit it will be fiscally responsible.
-An employer mandate to provide insurance. Eww! The House bill has this. We should be transitioning away from the current, broken system, not doubling down on it!

Reforms I can live with:

-Entitlement expansion (Medicare, Medicaid, and the ilk) using revenue from ending the tax breaks on employer benefits. I dislike entitlements, but if we're going to offer such progressive handouts, the way to pay for them is by ending the regressive and distortionary tax breaks. Offering more progressive benefits without repealing the regressive distortion makes no sense, as it means inefficiencies in both areas, the worst of both worlds and a quintessential example of bad governance dragging down the market by causing it to operate with less efficiency.
-An individual mandate: This is problematic because some people are healthy or wealthy and don't need or want insurance. But it could be acceptable if the bar is sufficiently low, e.g. only catastrophic coverage with a $5,000/yr. deductible and 20-30% co-pay. This is how real insurance is supposed to work anyway, vs. the cadillac cover-everything with measly $20 co-pays that it's ridiculous to expect everyone to need or want to pay for.