Now on to Hot Air's remaining attempts to criticize my essay. On healthcare:
Obamacare is "moderate" in the sense that it is one percent from a complete government takeover of the health insurance system. Democrats gamed the CBO to get a deficit-reducing score. The CBO’s alternative baseline — the one most consider the more realistic baseline — does not think the savings will materialize. And it’s funny Sullivan should mention the federal mandate on emergency-room care, as it is a driver of the so-called free rider problem, which is largely mythical.
Why not say, as Newt does, that a reform that includes the individual mandate (which was pioneered by the Heritage Foundation), and gives subsidies to the uninsured to get insurance, is one that was embraced by someone Gingrich calls a "Massachusetts moderate." It is entirely based on the private drug and insurance companies, without even a government-run competitor. Yes, I remain skeptical about whether it will, without further reform, save money. But it's conceivable – which is pretty damn remarkable given that it also gives us near-universal care. And go read the link about the "myth" of free-ridership. It's not mythical – because it's created, as the author concedes, by the 1986 law mandating ER treatment for anyone. Will Obamacare, modeled on Romneycare, cut those free rider costs? Yes:
In Massachusetts, the uncompensated care pool did shrink after the installation of Romneycare: but only by two-fifths. Uncompensated care in the Bay State was $661 million in the pool’s 2007 fiscal year, $409 million in PFY 2008, and $414 million in PFY 2009.
So you keep the same commitment to universal care but save two-fifths of the costs. Sounds like a gain to me. If this is the best the right can do against the substance of my essay, no wonder they merely piled on the cover-line and various ad hominem smears against yours truly. They've really got nothing else.
The Dish 