An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Kevin Drum on Wilson-mania
Kevin asks:
Did the Washington Post fulfill its duty to inform the public last night by running a mere eight separate pieces about Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s healthcare speech on Wednesday? Or is anything less than a dozen a sign that they aren’t really trying anymore? After all, Politico had at least 15 Wilson-related pieces, including a big front pager by Andie Coller headlined “A Party of Cranks?”I suppose I shouldn’t complain, but unlike a lot of my fellow lefties, I’m not convinced that obsessing over Joe Wilson actually does our cause any good. It’s time to send him back under the rock he crawled out from.
But if we stop talking about Wilson, we might start asking questions like how we’re going to pay for healthcare reform…
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
12 Responses to “Kevin Drum on Wilson-mania”
Especially after the successful economic policies of the Bush Administration:
A Decade With No Income Gains
Poverty Rate Rises; Uninsured Rate Stays Flat
Department of Corrections
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy
I'm a bit confused, Don. If I didn't give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I would assume you were trying to deflect attention from the troubled financing of Obama's reform package with a tangential attack on George W. Bush. The campaign's over and this is Obama's plan, so pointing a finger at Bush isn't really useful anymore. The question is, where will Obama get $900 billion to pay for his plan? If you follow my link, you'll see that there aren't any good answers to that question.
I didn't say there were, just pointing out that if Bush had left us a functional economy, we probably wouldn't need all that money, and if we did, it wouldn't be anywhere near as difficult to find said moneys.
Last but not least I don't remember hearing or seeing to many Elected Republicans or their supporters worry about where the money for their tax-cuts, corporate give-aways and wars was going to come from when Bush was in the White House.
David, it seems like your comment is a diversionary tactic too. The cost of one way of financing health care has to be compared with the other way. If the GOP “plan” of doing nothing is costed out, it costs far more than the Dems' plan. Health insurance will double in under 10 years (it doubled in the last 9 and it's rate of increase is still 7% a year). At that rate, a family policy will cost half of the median income, a fully unaffordable level. Businesses will have no choice but to drop health benefits, as they will equal or exceed wages in some cases. Those who lose their group insurance will then pay up to three times more for individual policies, which they will be unable to afford. You ask how we'll pay $900 billion in the next 10 years for the Dem plan. How will we pay the $2.3 Trillion cost of NOT reforming it?
The US pays over twice as much as any other advanced nation for health care, and for no better outcomes. It is SO ironic that the GOP argues that we can't afford to change the world's most costly and least cost-effective system.
It's highly profitable and it works for great for the financial elites (Most of whom are staunch republicans). There is a flock of sheep to be sheared and nothing must stand in the way of the shearing.
Funny. I used “sheep” as a part of my GOP taxonomy (which mirrors your comment) here:
http://themoderatevoice.com/46092/the-latest-bo…
GreenDreams, I have no problems with the analysis of alternatives. Of course, it is an assumption at best that Obama's plan will cost only $900 billion and also an assumption that it will save us any of the $2.3 trillion you expect us to pay out otherwise. As for being diversionary, Obama himself set the agenda by asserting that the price tag for his plan would be $900, then declining to elaborate how he would pay for it. I'm focused like a laser beam on the President's plan.
Don Q, I grant the validity of your point that in the past, few Republicans have demonstrated the same fiscal discipline they now demand from the party in power. That was precisely the point John McCain made many times during last year's campaign. I hope you don't mind agreeing with him.
However, if the main thrust of your argument is that Obama & Co. are being just as irresponsible as their predecessors, what does that say for hope and change? Were those just slogans designed to win an election? Egads.
So far they haven't been, I am saying that they should be. Budgetary considerations are nice but there is no upside for Obama to make them his number one priority. He would be far better off extending Medicare to the entire population and letting the regulators fix whatever problems crop up and find the fraudsters. He got elected to fix the economy and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not to balance the budget.
Silly Question…
Are “Compassionate Conservatism”, “Family Values” just a slogans designed to win elections?
Wilson-mania in the media and on this site as well as elsewhere is the latest manifestation of the pathological state of the farther left crowd, who is desperate about the failure of health care and of the Dems that the Dems have created themselves, and anger at rejection of it by the intelligent public.
If the GOP “plan” of doing nothing is costed out, it costs far more than the Dems' plan. Health insurance will double in under 10 years (it doubled in the last 9 and it's rate of increase is still 7% a year).
Aside from the points that David already made, the GOP plan is not to 'do nothing'.
And, there's at least one bipartisan plan (Wyden- Bennett) that could potentially solve a lot of the current problems and is rated by the CBO as cost neutral.
I don't know about you but I love Obama because I fell like he is interested about other peoples health. He improved the healthcare more then all the other presidents of USA so far. Also when I had some complains about some banks who did some bad things with people's money, he was also the only one who took this into consideration. I switched to blair saving money system after that and I gotta say I never had blair rewards complaints or this sort of things.