s skippy the bush kangaroo: jane hamshers of the left are wrong...oops, we mean, they're right

skippy the bush kangaroo



Wednesday, December 23, 2009

jane hamshers of the left are wrong...oops, we mean, they're right

ezra klein admits that what the "kill billers" have been saying is actually true: that obama actively campaign on the promise of a public option, ergo, their disappointment and sense of betrayl in this final senate bill is justified, and not just partisan screaming.

oy. i'll defend the argument that the health-care bill that looks likely to pass is structurally similar to the health-care proposal released by the obama campaign. but it's impossible to defend obama's statement that "i didn't campaign on the public option." for one thing, it was in his campaign plan, which is to say, he campaigned on it. the proposal (pdf) assured voters that obama's plan will "establish a new public insurance program available to americans who neither qualify for medicaid or schip nor have access to insurance through their employers."

the white house argues that they didn't emphasize it in public speeches, and according to salon's alex koppelmann, that's true. but speaking as someone who did a lot of reporting on their health-care plan, they emphasized it privately quite a bit. it was, in fact, their answer to a lot of the other flaws in their proposal. so whether obama used it in his speeches, his campaign purposefully pushed it to, at the least, some reporters, which is to say they worked to ensure that people knew about the public option's important role in their health-care thinking.
before we continue, may we just say that the phrase "kill billers," which lefty opponents use to refer to the progressives who want to scuttle the senate version of the hcr, and start over with what the house has crafted, seems rather incongruent. that is to say, the phrase makes them sound like fanboys of the uma thurman/quentin tarrantino blood-fest flicks of earlier this decade. not that that's a bad thing, we'd be proud to be labeled "kill billers," if it referred to uma. we love referring to uma, at any time, which is the reason we digress here. but as to health care reform, shouldn't the proper gerund be "bill killers"?

anyway, even if this bill gets passed, there are many progressives that feel it won't be as big a win as the moderate centrists are hanging their hats on. and we'd have to admit that some of the arguments make good sense.

whether or not the policy turns out to be a boon to people's economies in the long run, the idea of a government mandate to force people to buy a private corporate product (ie, health insurance) will be a public relations nightmare. even we at skippy international, who are dyed-in-the-wool leftys, balk at the idea of the government telling us we have to buy something.

we think health insurance is a good thing, and we think that young healthy people who elect not to have health insurance are taking risks they don't understand, but we certainly give them their right to shoot themselve in the foot. who are we, or moreover, the government, to force them into unwanted, albeit utlimately worthwhile consumerism?

if the dems think they can sneak under the mighty wurlitzer that drudge/fox/limbaugh/beck have established without a barrage of cries of "socialism will kill us all!" once this bill gets passed, they are deluded. of course, they think ben nelson is a democrat, so maybe the deluded point is moot.

addendum: on the other hand, it's a bit disconcerting to see jane not only agree w/grover norquist, but also actively work with him against this administration.
posted by skippy at 12:58 PM |

5 Comments:

Health "insurance" is NOT a "good thing." Health CARE is a good thing. The fact that we have a system that occasionally provides us care (and occasionally doesn't) based on an insurance model is what is WRONG with the system.

As you can tell, I'm strongly opposed to this bill, including the mandate. But I'm compelled to point out that the argument about "forcing people to buy a private corporate product" falls flat, since every single state requires you to purchase private auto insurance in drive on their roads (the smart ones require proof of insurance even to register your car). They are giving you something in return (the right to drive on their roads), but, whatever, the fact is you ARE mandated to buy that product (if you have a car, obviously).
commented by Blogger Left I on the News, 5:56 PM PST  
well, eli, auto insurance helps cover the damage you do to innocent third parties when you ram their car into them, and, as you yourself point out, you can opt out of owning a car if you don't like buy car insurance.

i doubt if you can opt out of having health if you don't want to buy health insurance.

but i have a feeling you and i are closer in pov on this issue than this niggling point would indicate.
commented by Blogger skippy, 8:09 PM PST  
I'm getting pissed at the 'we already take away your rights and liberty here and here, so that gives us justification to do it there and there' arguments. Any moron knows that two wrongs do not make a right. Forced auto insurance, especially the no fault insurance we have in Michigan, is a joke and a failure, and to use it as an argument in favor of replicating it on a huge and costly scale with health-insurance is stupid and moronic. Fools.
commented by Anonymous A Conservative Teacher, 7:34 AM PST  
"...it's a bit disconcerting to see jane not only agree w/grover norquist, but also actively work with him against this administration."

Think Roosevelt and Stalin.

Dolphins play with orcas when the orcas aren't hungry.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 11:40 AM PST  
regarding your addendum, skippy, i'm gonna go with driftglass on this one.
commented by Blogger mahakal, 8:38 AM PST  

Add a comment