From the Washington Post‘s phone interview prior to the President’s speech on health care:
Hiatt: But if you got a bill that was universal access paid for but didn’t have things you think are key to bending the curve, would you accept it?
Obama: No. And I’ve been clear about that. And then the reason is because over time, what would happen would be that even if we had paid for it in the first 10 years, in the next 10 years if health care inflation went up faster than whatever revenue source we had we’d be adding to the deficit then. And that’s just not sustainable. And I’ve said as much to members of Congress; we’ve got to do both.
This means two things: One — everyone must have insurance (and the government will wind up providing it). And two: the government must not provide too much of it to anyone (meaning rationing).
In greater context, this sounds very similar to the approach Obama has taken in economics. From taking over failing car companies and supporting restrictions on them in the form of cap-and-trade, to bailing out financial institutions and telling them specifically how to run their businesses, the theme is pretty clear. Use the crisis to get more government involvement, then hobble progress by making it harder for the business to operate without that involvement.
Obama has made it absolutely clear that having it both ways is not an ideal — it’s a government mandate.
