It's encouraging that Bush wants to make expanding health coverage a significant part of his State of the Union, and plans to introduce a new plan.
Not that his proposal is good; the reviews I read seem quite negative, as do the (smarter) observers in the NYT article, and suggest that the main burden of this would fall on the middle class. Of all the issues in politics today, I probably know the least of the intricacies of health care, and I can't claim to know whether or not this will affect the disproportionately large expenses of our country on health care, or the inefficiencies, duplications and price-gouging that plague our private sector. But it's good to see that (thanks in large part to state plans like in Massachusetts and California) the issue is now on everyone's national agenda as an action item of perceived importance to voters.
Now, if we could just achieve that for the environment, like they've done in Canada...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Remember, it was on everyone's agenda in 1992, as well. In fact, Bush the Elder had a possibly more ambitious plan in his reelection campaign than Bush the Younger is likely to unveil in the Speech from the Throne (er, I meant the State of the Union).
Thanks for the historical reminder-- it puts things in perspective. After all, health care has been a goal for most of this century...
Now we are seeing many states move ahead, in part through impatience. Hopefully such efforts can serve as examples or at least kill some of the negativity for some of the interested parties. 2008 offers hope for a Democratic president and Congress, and hence, I would think, the best possibility for such legislation since '93-94...
Point being, in the end, this is the first time we're really even talking about this seriously, on a national basis, since then, and I think that's cause for excitement. Perhaps I'm too easily excitable.
Post a Comment