Republicans have flogged Democrats for years for plotting a government takeover of the health care system. So Democrats took them to heart. Last year they effectively passed Mitt Romney's health care reform. It leaves the private system intact while using a new mix of regulatory carrots and sticks to achieve universal coverage.
Well, imagine my surprise when I read last week that, upon further review, Republicans think a bona fide government takeover of health care would be... OK. From the Times-Dispatch editors:
The Times-Dispatch shares the opposition to the individual mandate. On several occasions we have explained our discomfort with a policy that permits the federal government to compel people to buy a specified product. A single-payer system that relied solely on taxes to pay for medical services probably would pass constitutional muster, although we would oppose relying on Britain's National Health Service as a model.
(Sound of me banging my head against the keyboard).
Well, that non-NHS system you think would sparkle in the eyes of the Founders is what they have in Canada, a program called...wait for it... wait for it... Medicare. Only it's open to everyone, not just those over 65. But hasn't your side spent the last two decades assuring us that Canadian-style health care is on par with, say, Haiti?
I think Jesus prophesied about these people when he said:
‘To what then will I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? 32They are like children sitting in the market-place and calling to one another,
“We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not weep.”
For when the Daily Kos and Fire Dog Lake people came screaming for the insurance CEO's heads you said, "They're crazy socialists," but when the Messiah Obama came with no public option you said, "This man is overthrowing our law!"
At this point there's not much left to say. You will never, ever please these people.
At best, they seem to acknowledge that there's problems in the system, but their a priori opposition to any government action to address inequalities prevents them from endorsing anything more than wishful thinking as a solution. If markets and charities should solve this problem, they will, won't they?
At worst (and this seems less true of the Times-Dispatch editorial board and more true with the GOP leadership in Congress), it seems to be a case of, To hell with logic or coherent arguments. The only coherence on their side is, "If the Democrats are for it; we're against it, even when they adopt our positions."
Posted by: |