One last Ponnuru health care post: You call that radical?

I don’t think there’s a whole lot of reader overlap between The Corner and the Curious Capitalist, so here’s the bulk of Ramesh Ponnuru’s latest response to my response to his response to my critique of his inaugural Time column:

The tax break for employer-provided coverage would stay on the books, although it would be flattened so as not to encourage gold-plating. It’s just that the playing field between employer-provided and individually-purchased insurance would be leveled. I suspect that over time we would have a much larger individual market, but it would be a gradual shift. The Republican plan is radical in some respects, but it’s not quite as radical as Fox makes it sound.

… If you don’t want a high-deductible plan, an employer-run system could leave you stuck with one against your will. A more robust individual market might not give you what you consider the perfect option, but you would at least be able to choose among the options yourself, based on your preferences rather than those of your employer.

I don’t want to make Ponnuru feel forced to respond yet again (to quote Captain Picard in that Borg movie, “It ends hyeah!”), so I’ll just say that if that‘s all he’s talking about, then no, it’s not very radical.

The Creepy Dudes of Wall Street: Are Finance Guys Losing Their Mojo on the Dating Scene, Too?

It’s tough to tell when an internet phenomenon reaches actual meme status. But, in the case of the “creepy finance guy,” I think we can finally call it.

This week saw yet another jaw-dropping tale of Wall Street prattishness, this time in the form of a post-date survey. Yep, a finance dude went on a date with a lady. And then he asked her for constructive feedback.

p_lukasiak

I don’t want to make Ponnuru feel forced to respond yet again (to quote Captain Picard in that Borg movie, “It ends hyeah!”), so I’ll just say that if that’s all he’s talking about, then no, it’s not very radical.

I’m assuming that Timespeak for “Ponnuru’s position was so poorly thought out that it was easy to get him to negate his original premise, and rather gloat I’ll be snidely “gracious”….

Ponnuru’s column:

it’s the Republicans who make more radical proposals….most Republicans have come to believe that our health-care system is dysfunctional because it is employer-based and that this dysfunction has to be attacked at the root. In this view, everything people dislike about our system results from the tax break for employer coverage.

Ponnuru’s revised position…

The tax break for employer-provided coverage would stay on the books,

*************
btw, I understand that Time feels it has to give space to these recipients of wingnut welfare, but can’t they at least demand some intellectual honesty of them? What Ponnuru describes as the problem (the fact that employer paid health care premiums are not included in taxable income) is not a “tax break” that people “take”. There is no line on the Form 1040 that allows you to deduct your employer paid health care premiums to determine your adjusted gross income. Its just compensation that doesn’t get taxed.)

And does Ponnuru expect to be taken seriously when he says that not including employer paid health insurance premiums is responsible “for everything people dislike about our [current health care] system?”

Doesn’t your magazine have some responsibility to not provide a print forum for people who are obviously certifiable? (it costs too much to stop us certifiable types on the web! )