|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
The Senate Bill Saves Families Money
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | ArmyDem |
| Last Edited | ArmyDem Dec 21, 2009 05:34pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Commentary |
| News Date | Monday, December 21, 2009 11:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor of The New Republic
Dec 21, 2009
Health care reform looks like it’s finally ready to pass the Senate, now that the Democrats have 60 votes in hand. But here on the left, not all of us are jumping for joy. Some think the Senate bill is just barely better than nothing. Others think it’s worse than even that.
As this argument goes, health care reform won’t do all that much to help people who need it. Insurance will still be expensive and even people who have coverage will discover they owe significant out-of-pocket expenses once they get sick. A public insurance option might have made this tolerable, since it would have provided better, cheaper coverage. Without it, many of us are arguing, reform is just a big giveaway to the insurance industry--one that produces little social progress.
It’s certainly true that, under the terms of the Senate bill, insurance would cost more and cover less than many of us would prefer. But would it really produce little social progress? Is it really worse than nothing?
One way to answer this question is by comparing how a typical family would fare with reform and without. At my request, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber produced a set of figures, based on official Congressional Budget Office estimates. The results tell a pretty compelling story, particularly when put in human terms.
 |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
