When Harry Reid closed the Senate to the public yesterday my first thought was "I guess they're going to put Libby on double secret probation." After all, invocation of Senate Rule 21 is generally done with the consent of both parties and Frist might theoretically have offered Reid the opportunity to grab one more closing headline. Instead, showing the Dems almost comical ability to continue to drill holes in the hull of their sinking ship in order to let the water out more quickly, Reid desperately tried to call attention to a report that would already be in the public record but for his own party's intransigence. Senator Pat Roberts has to be more than a little miffed at Reid's stunt and will hopefully shove the Phase II report down the Dem's throat in the very near future.
So, how did Reid's ploy turn out? Did he give another day's existence to a story that's been on life support for months? If we take a look at Max Boot's article in the LAT or Jonah Goldberg's piece at Town Hall we might reach the conclusion that Reid's action did not have precisely the desired result. For some reason, every time the Dems drill another hole, even more water rushes into boat. Given that the gunwhales are within an inch of the waterline today, that will soon change. Drilling holes in the hull will soon have no effect on the water level within the Democratic ship whatsoever.
7 comments:
David,
What other cards do they have in their hand? I didn't like the prescription drug giveaway, I don't think it was necessary at all but I understand the politics involved. The Reps just took that card out of the Dems hand.
What other "social problem" is laying around and subject to a proposed statist cure? The media is preternaturally silent about the economy, which means it's humming like a well tuned Ferrari, what's left? Underfunding of NCLB? Going after that will reopen the voucher issue and the Dems can't stand that debate.
They don't have any "winning" cards and are stuck with "we're not them" as a rallying cry. That ain't a product that I would be eager to bring to market.
Well, one issue I'd like to see some movement on is the cost of health insurance.
Mine is almost as much as my rent.
When the end of the month comes and I don't have money left for food, sometimes I just want to chuck the whole policy and let someone else worry about it.
I'm not kidding.
Syl,
Are you willing to give up your choice of doctors and accept a lower level of care in order to save money? Are you prepared to "wait in line" for tratments that may be rationed?
If not, why is the additional cost of your preferences better born by your fellow citizens rather than you? Are you willing to accept the responsibility for the cost of lifestyle choices made by you at an early age which have an impact on the cost of your medical treatment? (That's a pure hypothetical and not to be taken personally.) Because at some point in the rationing system required to provide fewer services at lower costs bureaucrats will decide that society should not bear the burdensome cost of your early poor choices and you will be moved down the list of those approved for treatment.
Every disadvantage I've listed occurrs today under "state managed" health care systems in other countries and will occurr here in one form or another if "free" health care is provided.
Well, your boilerplate answer won't help me. There's nothing wrong with me that has anything to do with 'early lifestyle choices' so get off that talking point.
First I didn't say anything about free health care as anything I think the government should provide. I said my premiums are so high that I'm in danger of not being able to pay them. You're assuming way too much.
My coverage chose the slate of doctors I could go to. That was changed recently by the insurer in VA. I've researched this a bit because I've become almost desparate. I only have found I could save $50/month by much reducing coverage in areas that because of my age and family history I do not wish to ignore.
There certainly must be things the government can do to help, such as restrict frivolous suits on doctors. I didn't say I wanted a Democrat sponsored solution, I meant that there could be discussion so that the Rep's would get off their butts and do something that helps, yet fits their philosophy.
is not the problem here (once again) down to bad faith and a biased MSM? after all, on the surface, it would seem to be reasonable to ask the question "Once they received the intelligence, did members of the administration accurately and honestly portray it to the American people?"
Syl,
"(That's a pure hypothetical and not to be taken personally.)" meant what it says. I've smoked for forty years and will be denied a lung transplant on that basis should the need ever arise. Your assertion of "boilerplate" is unfounded as I've never written on healthcare before. What I wrote was what I thought of as I contemplated what government "provision" of health care has meant in countries where it is "provided".
I watch premiums increase as the services provided decrease the same as you do. While restricting law suits may provide some help (and I would certainly support loser pays costs for our tort system) I don't think that it will have the type of impact necessary to lower costs by more than five percent.
I wouldn't care which side proposed a solution - if it involves the state, the questions I raised would have to be answered before I would consider supporting it.
re health care.
I see this every day and I know people who spend hundreds of dollars each month on medicine and some of those people are living on less than a thousand a month.
So I guess whether or not you view it as necessary depends on whether you are making choices between dinner and your blood thinner.
My health insurance has doubled in the past year. I know people who have given it up because they can not afford the premiums.
This is an area in which Republicans are vulnerable and Bush knows that. That is what the drug plan was all about.
Post a Comment