![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I read the Wall Street Journal online. Their politics, right to center-right, are not mine, but I do find points of interest. Two editorials caught my eye today.
GM Gets a Second Chance
The article GM Gets a Second Chance, points out that a lot of what supporters of the GM bailout said would happen has in fact happened. One key point in the article that I'd like to quote, and suggest that some of my conservative readers cut out and frame, is:
"The United Auto Workers (UAW) union gets another 17.5% which will provide health care for retired workers, taking that burden off GM.
No one really likes this, especially the UAW, which wanted cash instead of stock for the money that GM (and Chrysler too, for that matter) owed the union. But the union has to become part of the solution at GM, not part of the problem. Taking stock in the car companies was a sacrifice, not a victory, for the UAW."
The Public Option Two-step
The article The Public Option Two-step is not so accurate. It starts from a flawed premise, "The reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is because they know it is an opening wedge for the government to dominate U.S. health care." No, the reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is that is the only way to ensure everybody, including the poor and sick, gets covered.
As I understand it, Obama's health care program will work similarly to Medicare. Everybody has (or is eligible for) a base level of coverage. If you want and can pay for extras, you (or your employer) can go buy them. It's a simple system, and has plenty of room for private insurers and providers.
The Wall Street Journal article is also worried about "crowd-out" or the concept that cheaper public coverage will drive out private coverage. Unlike some people, at least this article doesn't try to argue that government care would be inherently bad. After all, if the care is bad, there would be an obvious market for "upscale" services.
GM Gets a Second Chance
The article GM Gets a Second Chance, points out that a lot of what supporters of the GM bailout said would happen has in fact happened. One key point in the article that I'd like to quote, and suggest that some of my conservative readers cut out and frame, is:
"The United Auto Workers (UAW) union gets another 17.5% which will provide health care for retired workers, taking that burden off GM.
No one really likes this, especially the UAW, which wanted cash instead of stock for the money that GM (and Chrysler too, for that matter) owed the union. But the union has to become part of the solution at GM, not part of the problem. Taking stock in the car companies was a sacrifice, not a victory, for the UAW."
The Public Option Two-step
The article The Public Option Two-step is not so accurate. It starts from a flawed premise, "The reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is because they know it is an opening wedge for the government to dominate U.S. health care." No, the reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is that is the only way to ensure everybody, including the poor and sick, gets covered.
As I understand it, Obama's health care program will work similarly to Medicare. Everybody has (or is eligible for) a base level of coverage. If you want and can pay for extras, you (or your employer) can go buy them. It's a simple system, and has plenty of room for private insurers and providers.
The Wall Street Journal article is also worried about "crowd-out" or the concept that cheaper public coverage will drive out private coverage. Unlike some people, at least this article doesn't try to argue that government care would be inherently bad. After all, if the care is bad, there would be an obvious market for "upscale" services.
