Just goes to show that although the Republicans said that they wanted health care reform, they never did.
Huh. How then would you explain my advocacy of decreasing insurance mandates dating to before the election and the Obama administration’s focus on passing a health care bill?
Rather, saying that they were for it was part of their strategy of being against it. It goes back to republican wordsmith Frank Luntz’s talking points memo:
If it all goes back to something Frank Luntz wrote in 2009, then why did John McCain advocate health care reform in early 2008 as part of his campaign?
So you’re right. It makes no sense to try to work with someone who wants only to see you fail.
No bill is better than a bad bill. The public option is a bad idea, and is quite ridiculous when presented as a method for reigning in costs. And that’s exactly what Obama did. He said our nation requires health care reform in order to return to economic prosperity, using that rationale to gain public support. But you simply won’t reign in costs by merely making access to health care easier. The resulting increase in demand will increase the amount of services delivered, and when maximum services are delivered rationing must follow even if there’s money to pay for more services. The only way to decrease the amount of services delivered is to ration care.
Think about it. After selling us on the notion of health care reform as a cost-saving measure, the latest version of the bill costs something like $8 billion. But the Dems try to make it seem OK by calling it deficit neutral. If it is deficit neutral (the CBO report, as I understand it, sticks with the initial years of the plan before the real costs start to pile up), then that is because of the taxation embedded in the bill (“Not one dime.”).
Everyone’s heard Robert Reich do his impression of an honest presidential candidate by now, right?