Normally New York Times op-eds annoy me (David Brooks, anyone? Not to mention Dowd on a day when her snark fails to be funny…). A notable exception is Paul Krugman’s column today on how, in the context of health care reform, John McCain is a dirty liar, and also possibly evil. (Okay, the words "dirty liar" and "possibly evil" might be my own, so don’t be disappointed if you read his column and don’t actually see McCain referred to in those terms. He does, however, refer to the McCain health plan as merely "a set of bullet points on the campaign’s Web site.")
Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. John McCain has had cancer in the
past. Last weekend, Mrs. Edwards bluntly pointed out that neither of
them would be able to get insurance under Mr. McCain’s health care plan.It’s about time someone said
that and, more generally, made the case that Mr. McCain’s approach to
health care is based on voodoo economics — not the supply-side voodoo
that claims that cutting taxes increases revenues (though Mr. McCain
says that, too), but the equally foolish claim, refuted by all
available evidence, that the magic of the marketplace can produce cheap
health care for everyone.As Mrs. Edwards pointed out, the McCain
health plan would do nothing to prevent insurance companies from
denying coverage to those, like her and Mr. McCain, who have
pre-existing medical conditions.The McCain campaign’s response
was condescending and dismissive — a statement that Mrs. Edwards
doesn’t understand the comprehensive nature of the senator’s approach,
which would harness “the power of competition to produce greater
coverage for Americans,” reducing costs so that even people with
pre-existing conditions could afford care.This is nonsense on multiple levels.
What this should tell us, I think, is that however we might feel about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it is very important for a lot of people in this country that the eventual Democratic nominee win the election, and that "possibly evil" war hero not be elected President.
Accidental Blogger 
4 responses to “Health Care Reform (Joe)”
“it is very important for a lot of people in this country that the eventual Democratic nominee win the election”
Well put. It kills me when people say, “Voting doesn’t matter. All politicians are the same”. Because…even if the majority of policians are compromised, ineffective, sold out…the two parties do put different policies into place…policies that have a very real impact on people. Another example would be with supreme court nominees. A democratic president…even if someone doesn’t like them…will not choose the same supreme court nominees as a republican…so party distinction is, like you are saying, very important. I’m not phrasing this very well. I should just say, “What Joe said”. That’s my new stock answer for everything.
LikeLike
I’ve been encouraging a lot of people for a long time to just make “What Joe said” their stock answer for everything. I’m glad it’s finally happened!
I tend to have a lot of sympathy for the idea that politicians in both parties generally suck, and are far too similar in most ways. Health care is the big thing that strikes me as going to immediately make a big impact on a lot of people’s lives, though– even with the imperfect Obama or Clinton plan, the difference in coverage and affordability compared to the McCain plan… it just matters.
Good point too about the Supreme Court. With the current composition, and the fact that based on age/health, the liberals are the ones who will be vacating seats… the last change (O’Connnor/Kennedy as swing votes to Kennedy as the swing vote) will look like nothing compared to the next one if McCain wins (Kennedy as part of the liberal wing and Alito as the new swing vote).
LikeLike
Although McCain, in one of his candid moments did confess that Alito is too conservative (he prefers the likes of Chief Justice Roberts), he no doubt will pick Supreme Court justices to please the arch coservatives.
McCain’s reputation as a maverick (read unexpectedly liberal) is way overblown. The man sometimes comes across as a bit of a nut case. But he is actually as calculating as the next opportunistic politician. And despite his “awe shucks” posturing as a war hero, that he wasn’t present to vote for this bill, makes it plainly clear that he will work hard to maintain the right wing status quo in war and peace.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, it seems to me that Justice Alito is somewhat less conservative than Chief Justice Roberts. Maybe the opposite perception is out there because John Roberts presents himself so well, and as the first one nominated (and replacing Rehnquist instead of O’Connor), he did not have the difficult confirmation battle that Sam Alito had. But really, Kennedy is a conservative Justice, and Alito and Roberts are both so much closer to Scalia than Kennedy that it’s almost kind of silly to talk as if there are meaningful differences between them.
LikeLike