This thing is getting old
First it was piano legs Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner doing the national health care thing. Boy did they get far, real far, about as far away from the issue as they possibly get could once they realized how futile their "little" nationalized plan was going to go. When it comes to health care in the US, the scale of greed and intractability speaks volumes for the practicality of the status quo.
Fast forward to March, 2010, when President Obama signs into law the National Health Care Act, a monumental piece of legislation designed to do all sorts of things, from eliminating pre-existing conditions, to opening health care insurance to all, to cutting back on Medicare reimbursements. Everyone, other than President Obama and his crafty advisors, are up in arms over this prescribed government/social change.
Why are people so upset? Hard to say; aside from the epic Lilliputian battles that rested on which side of an egg one should break when making eggs, I can't think of a more emotionally-laden issue than this.
Which brings me to an observation on on the dogma of the contestants. As one of several thousand in an audience last night taking in the "Intelligence Squared -- Repeal Obamacare" debate at the NYU Skirball Center, I had the opportunity to see more of what anyone even marginally informed would know -- that this Health Care Reform Act is not well thought out, not very well understood, and scores mega points for 'wuss factor' given the interminable phase-in periods. More than half of the legislation isn't scheduled to kick in for a few years, during which time the topic and what remains of the original legislation will be beaten half to death by misinformed special interests driven by indefatigable greed.
As for the actual debate, there were two individuals on the dais pointing out why Obamacare should be repealed, and there were two individuals on the dais (4 men plus a male moderator from ABC News) explaining why the law should be upheld. Since the debate was held in the West Village of New York City, a bastion of bleeding heart liberals, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict which of the two debaters would warm the hearts of the pro-Obama crowd. (Even if President Obama is a lousy President foisting ill-conceived social engineering on us, liberals have a moral responsibility to "one of their own.") So while the repeal this mess debaters made the most intelligent points, particularly Douglas Holtz-Eakin an economist who relies on real numbers, the crowd seemed far more supportive of the let's leave this mess alone debaters.
The funny thing is, I am a Registered Democrat, so I am not blinded by some weird Republican screed that somehow ends up in nightly bombing raids over countries in the Middle East. Far be it from me to defend or criticize Desert Storm with any more or less fervor than I would extend to the US Health Care Reform Act. But I was nauseated by the brimming confidence exhibited by the let's leave this mess alone debaters -- Jonathan Cohn and Paul Starr. The crowd warned to them solely because of the their loyalty to liberal, democratic thinking. I got the feeling that they didn't even do their homework because even hollow, luke warm arguments in favor of Obamacare at this debate would be graciously received, as words that any liberal worth his or her salt should hang on to indefinitely.
Nobody could be as stupid as these people defending this preposterous plan. Why don't they just admit that none of this makes any sense, but it's the best they could come up with given that there is very little money available and everyone needs health care. It's like trying to build a house on a crumbling foundation. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin explained: "let's fix Medicare first."
But that wouldn't be splashy enough for the President and his men, better that they should try to squeeze some credit out of an ill-conceived debacle already failing on a state level (Massachusetts). As one of the audience's best bleeding hearts put it to the debaters: "Where is the humanity in all this?" It's not here. Note to bleeding heart liberals -- it never was. What is humane about a health care system that treats illegal aliens and turns away Americans without insurance? That pushes elderly people out in the street because they are using up their inpatient days allocation.
Radical change is in order here; we are well past the interior decorating stage; in my opinion, we have to rip this house down and rebuild it. The only question I have is how much longer policy planners and legislators can pretend that this window-dressing is going to have any kind of favorable impact, or for that matter, will satisfy anyone (including those considered inhumane).
Fast forward to March, 2010, when President Obama signs into law the National Health Care Act, a monumental piece of legislation designed to do all sorts of things, from eliminating pre-existing conditions, to opening health care insurance to all, to cutting back on Medicare reimbursements. Everyone, other than President Obama and his crafty advisors, are up in arms over this prescribed government/social change.
Why are people so upset? Hard to say; aside from the epic Lilliputian battles that rested on which side of an egg one should break when making eggs, I can't think of a more emotionally-laden issue than this.
Which brings me to an observation on on the dogma of the contestants. As one of several thousand in an audience last night taking in the "Intelligence Squared -- Repeal Obamacare" debate at the NYU Skirball Center, I had the opportunity to see more of what anyone even marginally informed would know -- that this Health Care Reform Act is not well thought out, not very well understood, and scores mega points for 'wuss factor' given the interminable phase-in periods. More than half of the legislation isn't scheduled to kick in for a few years, during which time the topic and what remains of the original legislation will be beaten half to death by misinformed special interests driven by indefatigable greed.
As for the actual debate, there were two individuals on the dais pointing out why Obamacare should be repealed, and there were two individuals on the dais (4 men plus a male moderator from ABC News) explaining why the law should be upheld. Since the debate was held in the West Village of New York City, a bastion of bleeding heart liberals, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict which of the two debaters would warm the hearts of the pro-Obama crowd. (Even if President Obama is a lousy President foisting ill-conceived social engineering on us, liberals have a moral responsibility to "one of their own.") So while the repeal this mess debaters made the most intelligent points, particularly Douglas Holtz-Eakin an economist who relies on real numbers, the crowd seemed far more supportive of the let's leave this mess alone debaters.
The funny thing is, I am a Registered Democrat, so I am not blinded by some weird Republican screed that somehow ends up in nightly bombing raids over countries in the Middle East. Far be it from me to defend or criticize Desert Storm with any more or less fervor than I would extend to the US Health Care Reform Act. But I was nauseated by the brimming confidence exhibited by the let's leave this mess alone debaters -- Jonathan Cohn and Paul Starr. The crowd warned to them solely because of the their loyalty to liberal, democratic thinking. I got the feeling that they didn't even do their homework because even hollow, luke warm arguments in favor of Obamacare at this debate would be graciously received, as words that any liberal worth his or her salt should hang on to indefinitely.
Nobody could be as stupid as these people defending this preposterous plan. Why don't they just admit that none of this makes any sense, but it's the best they could come up with given that there is very little money available and everyone needs health care. It's like trying to build a house on a crumbling foundation. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin explained: "let's fix Medicare first."
But that wouldn't be splashy enough for the President and his men, better that they should try to squeeze some credit out of an ill-conceived debacle already failing on a state level (Massachusetts). As one of the audience's best bleeding hearts put it to the debaters: "Where is the humanity in all this?" It's not here. Note to bleeding heart liberals -- it never was. What is humane about a health care system that treats illegal aliens and turns away Americans without insurance? That pushes elderly people out in the street because they are using up their inpatient days allocation.
Radical change is in order here; we are well past the interior decorating stage; in my opinion, we have to rip this house down and rebuild it. The only question I have is how much longer policy planners and legislators can pretend that this window-dressing is going to have any kind of favorable impact, or for that matter, will satisfy anyone (including those considered inhumane).
Comments
Post a Comment