Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
Ezra Klein persuasively argues that the Democrats erred by wandering into a $900 billion ceiling on the cost of health care legislation. Megan McArdle responds that no, the limit makes sense:
it seems to me quite obvious how the number got picked and why it became a hard limit: it would be very difficult to sell a bill that's any bigger. A health care bill much bigger could be plausibly rounded up to a trillion dollars by the opposition, and though the American public is still somewhat blinded by sticker shock from the last eight years of deficits, $1 trillion still sounds like a lot of money.
Has McArdle been following the health care debate? Does she not realize that describing the under-$900 billion Senate bill as a "trillion dollar bill" is a routine Republican talking point? Even if this wasn't already happening, doesn't she remember that the exact same thing happened with the stimulus? There may be good reasons for $900 billion but that's not one of them.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (1)
If that was the logic, I would have gone for 1.2 trillion for that stimulus, that way Republicans could just scream "over a trillion dollars" which doesn't sound too much worse than just a trillion dollars. At least then, the country would have benefited from a stimulus closer to what we actually needed.
If that was the logic, I would have gone for 1.2 trillion for that stimulus, that way Republicans could just scream "over a trillion dollars" which doesn't sound too much worse than just a trillion dollars. At least then, the country would have benefited from a stimulus closer to what we actually needed.