On his trip to Montana this week, President Obama reiterated the tired, partisan notion already heavily-regulated insurance companies for the problems in the health care system. Nonetheless, he expects the American people to believe that he, and the rabidly out-of touch U.S. House ““, intend to let people keep their current health care coverage if they wish to do so. Instead of calling out the President of the United States on his openly contradictory if rhetoric, the chattering classes have latched onto yet another Sarah Palin .
While President Obama was right to call out Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer on their defamatory comments pertaning to Americans who question the necessity of portions or all of the health care reform bill, he is partly to blame for its ocurrence. Instead of using his popularity and chief of staff to push a particular set of meaures through Congress, Obama, as with the climate bill, let House Committee chairmen direct the course of the legislation. This means that liberal committee chairs from equally “progressive” districts are directing national policy for a comparatively conservative country. If really was an aim President Obama sought and not merely a talking point, then letting John Dingell and his staff write the bill was nothing short of irresponsible.
With more Americans now no health care bill to the U.S. House proposal, the ironically Nancy Pelosi should replace her irresponsible rhetoric with opposition to Dingell’s bill when Congress resumes in the fall. Indeed, leaving a liberal to write a health care bill is like leaving a conservative Texan to write an energy bill; the contents of the finished product presented to the relevant committee should surprise no one. Of course, where the bill does make limits or reductons in spending, there has been much controversy.
With the changes to Medicare envisioned by said bill, it should have been obvious to the responsible media that the President when he said that the proposal was endorsed by the AARP. Much has been written correctly criticizing Sarah Palin for her comments alleging that H.R. 3200 would establish death panels. Nonetheless, the of the measure, and subsequent legislation modifying it could be cause for , even if merely from a civil libertarian standpoint. The comments of the former Alaska governor were also problematic for producng a distraction. There is not to like in a government-centered reform of health care whether or not such plans allegedly endorse (explicitly or otherwise) euthanasia.
Rhetoric can be a very powerful tool in conveying a point. If in the end a is passed, or if no major health insurance reform passes, then Palin’s comments could well be credited with that outcome. An infamous newspaper headline in 1975 likely ended early the political career of an underappreciated statesman. A 2006 in the New York Times discusses the infamous five-word New York Daily News headline: Ford to City: Drop Dead. In one brief passage, the 2006 story succintly captures the essence of exactly what that headline meant in the long term:
Mr. Ford never explicitly said “drop dead.” Yet those two words, arguably the essence of his remarks as encapsulated in the immortal headline, would, as he later acknowledged, cost him the presidency the following year, after Jimmy Carter, nominated by the Democrats in New York, narrowly carried the state.
Thus, the financial crisis which plagued the most populated of U.S. cities in the second year of the Gerald Ford presidency led to the downfall of his political career on the basis of carefully-chosen words. Ford understood that conservative governance necessitates fiscal restraint. But the people of New York City that autumn day received a vastly different message. Something like that happening today would get endless play for a week or more among television pundits and cable commentators.
So, when Nancy Pelosi goes around accusing U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” of being , it matters. She, of all people, should know better. In the heyday of McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) left its mark disproportionately on California. Representing San Francisco in the U.S. Congress, some of her constituents may have been caught up in that furor at the time.
Much as there is legitimacy in oppostion to most or all wars, so too is there legitimacy in criticism of, and opposition to state power in other policy areas. In this weekend, President Obama talked about how no American should be required to pay “outrageous” fees for health care coverage. Yet, this is exactly what he proposes. It should surprise no one that the Treasury Department is ways to allow the government the ability to go deeper into debt.
The old adage is right; If you think health care is expensive now, just wait untl it’s free. The very costs that Presdent Obama criticizes will be paid for by the American people, depriving every citizen of this great republic fundamental choice. of H.R. 3200 sets specific new coverage mandates virtually guaranteeing that those wanting to keep their private insurance will face higher premiums. Just as people without children and people whose children attend private schools pay taxes to pay for a far from great public education system, those with private insurance will be forced to pay for the health insurance of many mllions. That, Mr. President, is what is outrageous.
In deploying hostile rhetoric, the debate on legitimate points of reform is soured. That Sarah Palin has manufactured another controversy is not unexpected. What is unexpected, however, is the lack of tolerance shown by the Left and its advocates to contrasting points of view. Yet, the latter has gone underreported while ink wells have run dry due to the plethora of stories on the former. Despite all of this, otherwise intelligent people on the Left insist that there is no leftward bias in news coverage by much of the contemporary mainstream U.S. media.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
- On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
- Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
- A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
- Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010