One snare is that that a lot of overhead takes the form of jobs in the insurance industry. Any reasonable plan to reduce that overhead means eliminating all of those jobs.
1. That’s a good idea. I’m personally concerned about the political fallout of “m4a causes job losses”.
2. Is a good slogan, but understand that most of those people don’t think they’re doing a bad thing. Spending too much time demonizing the line level workers at insurance companies is probably counterproductive.
2. Yeah I have dealt with these people a lot as I and my wife have a chronic condition. I sympathize with them, most realize they have a horrible job and just need to make money to eat. Some are just bad people because systems like that everywhere tend to be selective over time for people who don’t care. (The ones that do try to leave.)
But the principal still stands, no matter how much I may sympathize with someone they don’t get any right to make income from causing other people suffering.
I think it’s important to have a solid answer to this question. When people believe that a plan is weak on the details, this is what they are talking about. It gives the impression that the promises of the plan stated upfront (we will save money by moving away from wasteful health care system) are some sleight of hand, moving costs from a well-defined bucket to a mystery bucket we don’t measure.
