Defending the Democratic Health Reform?

I'm watching Joe Stesak (D PA) try to defend the Democratic plan to tax healthcare benefits so as to pay for the "uninsured." He explains that even though 47 million people are "uninsured," that they do in fact receive care. It's just who pays for it. Right now, he says, we all pay through increased insurance fees. But if the uninsured are poor and can't pay for their new, government-required health insurance, don't we pay anyway, through taxes? When questioned about the apparent cost parallel between what happens now and the Dem's plan, Stesak went on to say that this was about overtness; that rather than pay for the uninsured in a backhanded manner, that we should just pay upfront and in the open.

Well talk about backhanded. While listening to Slesak, it occurred to me: this has nothing to do with insuring the uninsured. Stesak himself says that the uninsured do get care when they wander into a hospital. In fact, federal law says that no hospital can turn away a sick individual for any reason. This really has to do with government expansion and control. If the government, particularly the Democrats, can get their hands on the wheel of this, think what they can direct. Just like every government plan that came out of a Democratic congress.

Most import in this debate is the revelation that the Democrats not only want forced health insurance provided by employers, but they want that taxed, too. That's right: expand the base of people with required health insurance, and then tax that, thereby expanding the tax base and the tax rate.

I have to hand it to the Dems; they're slick. But in the interests of "transparency and "overtness," should they just say, "We want all your money so we can decide what's proper for you to do. Don't be alarmed. This will be good for you. We promise."