One of the more frustrating aspects of the debate over SCHIP expansion has been the reluctance of its opponents to clearly point out the prevarications being used to promote this fraud. So, the clarity of this Examiner editorial is refreshing:
Let’s revise the old saw about knowing when politicians lie. Instead of “when his lips are moving,” it should be “when he says ‘it’s for the kids.’ ” Exhibit A is the debate on reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
.
That’s right. The advocates of SCHIP expansion are lying. The bills concocted by the House and Senate are not “for the kids.” Together, they consitute a Trojan horse built to decieve the electorate into accepting socialized medicine. The Examiner calls on SCHIP’s promoters to come clean:
Democrats should ‘fess up that their real goal is to socialize American medicine … They should also admit that they’ve spun their budget projections to conceal the fact that they will have to raise taxes to pay for their proposal …
Fat chance.
Comments 4
Dave:
I am worried about you. Your paranoia projections are starting to reach Birch-ian levels. How can you honestly say, “The advocates of SCHIP expansion are lying,” without either (a) secret recordings of this broad group of people discussing their devious plan; or (b) the omniscience of a literary narrator?
Now, I am a health policy wonk, so I do understand the context of your argument despite the fact that I disagree on many levels. Others, however, may not be so keen as to the multiple orders of debate on this issue. Ulterior marxist motives aside, it is hard to argue that these changes will not help children in the first order by expanding access (even if all those 31 year-olds with 200k salaries also fall into this net too).
Can devious Leninists hold both goals at once?
Can the knowledgeable bleeding hearts really only care about the children and have no real understanding of the devious intentions of which you speak?
I would argue yes to both.
To disagree about the first, second, and third order effects of such a policy is one thing. Such debate is a great thing actually. But to call someone a liar is quite another. Tis a sign of desperation if anything. This is the same “slippery-slope communism” argument that has been made since Medicare was created. It is not new. While this argument places those of your ideological bent in an unfortunate place, the political awkwardness of being forced to ostensibly oppose such a sympathetic class (in this case children) does not render your ideological opponents liars.
I am not trying to engage you in this debate per se, my goal is to clean up the discussion here a bit. I know this is politics, but c’mon. At a minimum, those driven only by the basic ideological aims of which you accuse them seem to have no direct fiduciary interest to be served by their secret plan to socialize medicine. The same can not be said by their opponents, who other than a few poor free-market ideologues surely have much $$$ vested in the current system.
Cui bono?
PharmaCo and the AMA? Sure, but they are hardly pro-socialized medicine. But the other advocates? I would venture that the vast majority probably are doing this “for the kids” and if this furthers there other nefarious goals in the way in which you suggest, then they’ll take that too. But I won’t speculate as to their motives more than this, and I would hope you refrain from doing the same (unless you’d like to share those recordings).
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 11:51 am ¶You mean they’re not after my precious bodily fluids? Whew, that’s a relief.
Actually, one hardly needs recordings to know they’re lying. If someone has his hand in your pocket and tells you he’s changing your tire, it’s pretty obvious he’s not on the level. The actions of the Democrats on SCHIP conflict that sharply with their rhetoric.
Also, there’s this.
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 1:34 pm ¶The underlying premise of socialist endeavours is that the “planners” know better than the “proles,” and can therefore strip the “proles” of their rights in order to “protect” them from themselves.
I am certain they believe they have everyone’s best interests at heart, but at what price? How much liberty are YOU willing to forego to ensure that 31 year olds with 200K incomes have access to healthcare?
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 2:36 pm ¶Dave: I can’t read the Townhall link, but I already said I’m not engaging on this. It is a political loser for your crew and you know it. My point is that you had better have some bloody good evidence to call someone a liar (where I am from, you would likely be smacked for such an insult). And since the evidence which is required refers to another person’s subjective motives you would need something more (i.e. recordings) especially when direct financial conflicts are not at play. Your tire/hand-in-pocket tripe does not address this. Either you are genuinely as paranoid as the Birchers when they accused Ike of being a Commi sympathizer, or you have absolutely no personal honor in attempting to defame your ideological opponents. In any event, it reeks of depseration.
Rich: 31 year olds w/ 200k salary = a joke. Read the plan(s).
Posted 06 Aug 2007 at 4:05 pm ¶Post a Comment