再說舊金山傾斜
【邱鴻安】一個月前，本欄提到一件可能只會在舊金山發生的事：蓋普時裝公司 (Gap)的創辦人唐納德‧費沙，要送一座一億元的現代化博物館給這個城市，而且還會把他價值不菲的藝術藏品捐出來，但是舊金山民眾卻堅持不要。今天再說一件這個城市在價值觀上如何傾斜的事。
舊金山市政府最近通過了66億元的下年度預算，這樣龐大的數目反映出這個城市的大政府傾向，因為這個數目已超過了不少小州和大城市的預算。以位於矽谷的聖荷西來說，它的人口比舊金山多了20萬，但是它的預算卻只是舊金山的六分一。舊金山政府的開支那麼大，當然要付出代價，所以這裏的銷售稅和物價都比別人高。
不過，舊金山傾斜的最矚目例子，要算是這個城市的全民健保政策。舊金山在2007年通過這項全國首創的政策，目標是要為六萬名無健保人士提供健保。這項政策最近大出鋒頭，因為歐巴馬顯然以它作為健保改革的藍本，歐巴馬的目標也是要為無健保者提供健保 (4600萬人)，與舊金山的政策如出一轍。
舊金山的計畫實施了一年半，在六萬人中，已有75%參加了計畫，所需費用則達到1億2000萬元，這些費用由參加者、市政府、州政府和雇主共同負擔。那麼實施效果呢？26日公布的一項由非牟利組織所做的民調顯示，94%的參加者都說滿意這項計畫，92%還說會向別人推介這項計畫。由於那麼多人感到滿意，市長紐森立即發表聲明說，舊金山的經驗證明了「公營健保」是可行的。全國總工會(AFL-CLO)會長約翰‧史雲尼也說，舊金山模式可作為全國模範。
舊金山出身的聯邦眾院議長波洛西，顯然也以舊金山的計畫作為她在國會推動健改的藍本。一個多星期前，當歐巴馬政府暗示要放棄公營健保時，她毫不猶豫地說，健改不能放棄公營健保，因為唯有增加公營健保，私營健保才會受到競爭，而競爭則可以逼使私營健保改善服務和降低保費，更可讓民眾多了選擇，以及讓無健保者取得健保。波洛西為公營健保護航，話說得清脆響亮，毫無歐巴馬的遲疑，充分反映了她的舊金山價值；如果她最後在國會的健改立法中取得勝利，也就等於舊金山價值的勝利。
全民健保在舊金山當然不乏反對者，這個城市的餐館業就聯手興訟，挑戰這項計畫，因為這項計畫規定，作為雇主的餐館也要承擔部分經費。不過，餐館業提出的訴訟，看來難有勝訴的機會，因為訴訟已在加州法院系統全盤敗北，又已在聯邦地方和上訴法院失利，目前正上訴至聯邦最高法院。
事情就是這樣，舊金山民眾作出了選擇，希望他們的社會向全民健保的方向發展；他們在2007年投票通過全民健保計畫時，當然知道全民健保會帶來怎樣的代價，但是他們仍然投了贊成票。為什麼呢？因為他們認定，全民健保是社會發展的理想。(世界日報，邱鴻安專欄，8.29.2009)
Is it fair that some are rich and some are poor?
Is it fair that some education and some don't?
We shouldn't live in a society that people must work hard to have a good life. Quality life does NOT have to involve working hard, being smart all the time, and being responsible all the time.
Life is too short. Enjoy it while the going is still good. And to hell with fairness.
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
3. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
For objective and neutral opinion on health care, I recommend this WJ article. It's a way better read than Mr. 邱 's ultra liberal column.
http://www.worldjournal.com/pages/full_finance/push?article-《進場教戰》健改三大失誤 &id=3503811-《進場教戰》健改三大失誤&instance=fn_topics
In a robbery, if I don't pay, I get punished. Same for taxes, if I don't pay, I get punished.
>>The government manages the tax money.<<
Good one! We should give government all our money because no one manages better!
>>Why are you not complaining... national security... parks and recreations for your enjoyment<<
You already answered it for everyone. We need them and we want them. Subsidizing health care for a few... we don't need it and we don't want it.
Why are you not complaining about your money being robbed by the government to give you national security, fire protection, roads for you to travel on, police to maintain peace and order, and parks and recreations for your enjoyment?
Is robbing hard-working people who accumulated wealth and bankrupting the government working ?!
Please don't quote the "94%的參加者都說滿意這項計畫" again. If government was to subsidize MY health insurance, of course I'll be happy too !
We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president who also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What possibly could go wrong?
It's free to the people who don't work hard enough and who don't pay as much taxes as other. Get it? Where you learned how to read, Imbecile? I can go on and on but teaching you the merits of this will be like talking to bricks.
Who wouldn't like a free lunch?!
It's not that difficult for politicians to score support, when they dangle free money/reward to people's faces.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin