Overheard TV commentary: “The question is how much is healthcare reform going to cost the taxpayers and the government.”
Is there something here I’m missing? Aren’t the taxpayers and the government pretty much the same thing? Isn’t separating the two somewhat disingenuous (or ignorant)?
I think the argument is simpler than that: taxpayers are going to pay for health care regardless, whether there’s reform or not. The bill, however, would reduce the amount of money the government would pay for the care, and increase the number of people who are insured. So, in addition to helping slow down rising health care costs, it will also be more cost-effective.
And if you’re going to spend the money anyway, why not do it that way?