I recently had a conversation with a Colorado Judge who was very concerned that the proposed health care legislation will be far too costly if it passes.
I didn’t comment on that at the time.
But wouldn’t it be a more consistent position if the Judge were saying “because health care is too big a burden for taxpayers, I’m going to give up mine and pay for it myself! I’m fine with taking a $1,000 a month deduction off my pay so the taxpayers won’t be suffering from carrying this pricey benefit for me.”
I find it interesting that taxpayer paid health insurance was ok as long as the Judge’s health care was the burden, but when it came to adding anyone else it was clearly a too expensive program that should not pass.
My argument is that one should be consistent. Either support health care for everyone or agree the taxpayer should not subsidize anyone’s health care as being too expensive.
Judges are civil servants who get excellent health benefits subsidized by us all.
Maybe that’s the way this debate is going. If I have health insurance taken care of I don’t want increased taxes to pay for anyone else’s and if I don’t have it then I want government subsidized health care.
That may be a little concerning when one calculation put the number of government employees in the United States at 46% of the total workforce.
Tom Silverman, Glenwood Springs attorney (we do bankruptcies and the lack of ability to pay medical expenses is a prime cause of people needing my services for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy).
