In the middle of heated policy debates, projections of cost to industry and government fly thick and fast. If costs to citizens are mentioned, it's usually in their capacity as taxpayers, as though they weren't otherwise part of the economy. A couple examples from the global warming policy arena put this into sharp relief in a way that emphasizes the urgency of providing affordable health coverage to every American.
First, there's David Roberts' explanation (... with puppies!) of how the Congressional Budget Office undercounts the benefits of lower energy costs from efficiency. Their method counts the promotion of energy efficiency as a cost to the taxpayer, but not a savings to the ratepayer, as though you can make an absolute separation between people who pay taxes and people who pay utility bills.
That may make sense from the CBO's perspective, but not from the perspective of electricity-using members of the public trying to figure out whether new energy legislation benefits them.
Even Republicans were appalled when "[e]xecutives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive."
This is exactly why we need a public option. A real one. A good one. A plan that's as good as our legislators get, and that would even let their chicken* behinds off the hook for negotiating partner benefits for same-sex couples, because everyone would have access to it.
We need good healthcare, not to be forced into buying a crappy product that kills people by denying them the coverage they've paid for as soon as they get sick enough that their care would bankrupt the typical US household.
Why is Congress protecting these evil bastiches? I'd guess it's because they're bad people who recognize and protect their own kind. But I could be wrong. What do you think?
STATE BLOGS
