"The larger political message of this new proposal is that Mr. Obama and Democrats have no intention of compromising on an incremental reform, or of listening to Republican, or any other, ideas on health care. They want what they want, and they're going to play by Chicago Rules and try to dragoon it into law on a narrow partisan vote via Congressional rules that have never been used for such a major change in national policy. If you want to know why Democratic Washington is "ungovernable," this is it."
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board exposes President Obama's "updated" health-care proposal (and their intention to pass it by any means necessary) point-by-point as the transparent sham it really is.
Go read the entire piece.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board exposes President Obama's "updated" health-care proposal (and their intention to pass it by any means necessary) point-by-point as the transparent sham it really is.
Go read the entire piece.
Posts
4 comments:
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board leaves a lot to be desired. Their editorial about the Minnesota senatorial election recount was full of errors, if not lies. If they cannot get facts straight on an election, why should I listen to them on any subject?
The health care subject is important. The Democratic approach has quite a few problems, but at least they are trying something. They have no choice but to ram something through if anything is to be done; the "party of no" refuses to cooperate or even propose reasonable changes.
"They have no choice but to ram something through if anything is to be done"
Congress doesn't have to "do" anything about this issue. Why do you feel, Anon, that the solution to any and every problem in our country always have to be more government interference? I, for one, am happy that someone is willing to say "no" to schemes such as this one.
Where does it state in the Constitution, by the way, that Americans can be forced to buy a product or service that they don't wish to own or use from a private business?
The forcing issue is one of the problems. However, we have a LOT of people that are having trouble getting health care, and that is causing increasing amounts of costs to hospitals and governments when the worst happens and they end up in emergency rooms. The insurance companies have been causing trouble in every conceivable way; I look at it as health insurance reform, not health reform. They have been increasing premiums faster than heath costs have increased, thrown roadblocks to actually collecting on the benefits that were paid for, and generally causing havoc. If they were regulated to the standard of the auto insurance industry, things would be a lot better, and the auto insurance industry has nothing to be proud of.
My main objection was the use of the WSJ as an institution to believe; they cannot be taken seriously as an editorial body.
In case you try to peg me as a liberal that doesn't share any of your values (or, as many online conservatives write, a "traitor"), I agree with you on a lot of things, especially gun rights and the right to defend yourself. However, the amount of suffering going on in this country is immense, and something must be done about it. If that means reigning in the health insurance industry, so be it.
Anonymous, exactly what about price controls are you willing to defend here? Keep in mind that your goal is to INCREASE the supply of medical care, while price controls RESTRICT supply by definition.
Cripes. Why is it that so many people can't process the implications of price controls on a basic graph of supply and demand? Sorry, but a bill full of price controls IS worse than doing nothing, anon.
Post a Comment