The Left Pushes Linguistic Lunacies in Health Care
It is difficult watching the various discussions on “health care reform.” With health care back in the spotlight as the top story, so too comes the insane language the Left needs to use in order to push through this scheme.
Almost everything one hears about health care is a lie.
First, Medicare will be made smaller no matter what happens. Therefore, when Republicans defend Medicare in the service of (correctly) opposing the Democrats’ plan, it is dishonest. Any government program which gives consumers more of something than it costs to create will, naturally, be very popular. But Medicare is unsustainable at its current growth rate. Since senior citizens are the most passionately opposed to the Democratic plan, we won’t hear anything negative about Medicare from Republicans any time soon.
Second, the various news people should just stop using the phrase health care “reform.” Reform implies improvement. These proposals are true monstrosities. Even those who oppose the Democratic plans speak unwittingly on their behalf when they call these proposals “reforms.”
The language and phrasing by various politicians is a true wonder to behold. Senator Max Baucus said something like “we can’t afford not to do something,” as if any “something” will suffice. It is like a patient with a broken arm entering a hospital seeking relief. The head ER physician tells the patient, “we need to break your other arm.” When questioned by the patient, she is told, “we can’t afford not to do something.”
But the inanity of Baucus’ comment pales in comparison to Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill’s remarks yesterday on the O’Reilly Factor. She characterized the Baucus plan as constituting “a raise” for Americans. The Government mandates higher taxes, requires people to purchase insurance or be fined, insures more people by fiat, creates incentives for insurance companies to hike premiums, and funds this by promising to reduce Medicare expenditures “later.” Yet McCaskill says this bill will give “a raise” to the American people. She then invoked “States’ Rights” when questioned why she opposed interstate insurance competition. Now that is funny.
McCaskill also said that the real source of the “funding” for “reform” will come from the “calcified silos of profits” which are the insurance companies. Huh? Honestly folks, these people really don’t know what they’re talking about.
Yet, they are putting together 1,300-page bills. Actually, they are doing nothing of the sort. Unaccountable staff lawyers, in concert with outside lobbyist law firms, are the true drafters of this garbage. Then, five years from now, federal and state union employees working for the various national and local “health and human services” bureaucracies will interpret the mess. This will be followed by a variety of court challenges. But none dare not call it “reform.”
Why are we making this so difficult?
What should be focused on first: tax equalization, portability, and interstate competition. Instead we get this grand Rube Goldberg scheme designed to lead us toward a single-payer system. This can be done by eliminating rules and regulations, not creating new ones.
Secondly, as with Social Security, Medicare needs to be revamped. “Revamped” means eliminated and privatized. We are stuck with the “sunk costs” of our past promises. But this does not mean we need to keep creating new unsustainable promises for the next generation. The focus needs to be on how to get out of the “quicksand,” not on how to go further in.
That will be a discussion for another day. But right now, it does not look good for opponents of these various proposals. Karl Rove predicts a “reform” bill will pass — with a public option. It is not set in stone, but the public is being worn down, as if by design.