Posted on September 17th, 2009 in clean government, Colorado Politics, General, Health Care, liberty, National Politics, PPC | Written by Ben | 1 Comment »
Update: Tying the knot complete on this post, Jared Polis (along with fellow Colorado Democrat Diana Degette) was one of the 75 members of the U.S. House who voted today against ending taxpayer funding of ACORN.
Based on original research, Complete Colorado’s Todd Shepherd brings forward some interesting insights on Boulder Democrat Congressman Jared Polis’ personal financial stake in the “medical tourism” industry and his strong political support for increased government intervention in the health insurance market:
But here’s the rub: Jared Polis has made a long-term bet on the worldwide success of health care markets that have less regulation rather than more. Draw any conclusion you like, but there is no escaping the fact that BridgeHealth does not send patients to the United Kingdom or Canada to receive their health services. In fact, assuming those two countries have a mechanism to verify the citizenship of people applying for health services, non-citizens couldn’t possibly go to either country for medical tourism. Yet at the same time, it would be incorrect to conclude that Polis’ company is sending patients to places like India and Mexico by default.
As the left has persistently argued for health care reform dating back to Hillarycare and even further beyond, they’ve held up Canada and Britain as examples of how a more socialized model of health care could be successfully imported here to America. However, Mr. Polis’ money suggests that instead, we ought to examine what makes emerging health markets like India and Costa Rica so valuable. I’d suggest starting by examining whether these emerging markets have 1) a tort system that drives up costs, 2) a system of geographic boundaries that restrict where and when a provider or insurer can operate and sell their product, and 3) a tax structure that encourages portability and decision-making by the end consumer.
In other health care news, the Wall Street Journal has done some digging and learned that one of the tearjerker stories in President Obama’s big Congressional speech last week simply was “faulty” — to put it kindly (H/T Red State).
Which may or may not have something to do with the fact that any post-speech bounce of public support for Obama Care seems to have completely disappeared, according to Rasmussen:
Just before President Obama gave his speech to Congress last week, 44% of voters nationwide supported his health care reform proposal and 53% were opposed. Today, eight days after the speech and a brief bounce, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% support the health care plan and 53% are opposed. Absolutely no change.
The next move belongs to the Obama administration, which is busy struggling to distance itself from its close buddy ACORN.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.