And you thought that you were rid of Karl Rove.
The architect of the most disastrous presidency in modern American history offered his analysis of Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal this morning. It's just one more example of his Goebbels-like tendencies:
As the latest government-heavy plan announced by Hillary Clinton yesterday once again shows, the answers politicians offer on health care highlight the deep differences between liberals and conservatives. . . Liberals see the concerns of families as a failure of private insurance, and want the U.S. to move toward a government-run, single-payer model. This is a recipe for making problems worse. Socialized medicine inevitably leads to poor quality, inefficiency, rising taxes and rationing. The waiting lines and poor care that cause people from other countries to come here for treatment are not the answer.
Did you see a single line in her proposal -- not to mention the proposals of the other leading Democratic candidates -- that endorses a single-payer health care plan (not that some of us wouldn't want it to)? Highlights: tax credits for low-income individuals to buy private plans; tax credits for small businesses to provide private plans; relying primarily on private plans to cover the uninsured; and, yes, more government regulation, but only to make sure that, uh-huh, private plans don't engage in so-called adverse selection, where they refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions or who are clearly marked for long-term ill-health (smokes or the obese, for instance).
I noted that the quotes from Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani also attacked her plan as "government-run."
With so many thoughtful conservatives engaged in the health care debate (Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, for instance), why does precious space get allocated to the failed Mayberry Machiavelli?
Posted by gooznews at September 18, 2007 08:49 AM"With so many thoughtful conservatives engaged in the health care debate (Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, for instance), why does precious space get allocated to the failed Mayberry Machiavelli?"
Because the WSJ op-ed page isn't for thoughtful analysis. It's for disseminating the ruling party's official line.
Posted by: peter snees at September 18, 2007 11:35 AM"yes, more government regulation, but only to make sure that, uh-huh, private plans don't engage in so-called adverse selection"
Please tell me you aren't naive enough to actually beleieve this.
Posted by: Catron at September 18, 2007 03:31 PMRove: one more example of his Goebbels-like tendencies
Merrill--I thought perhaps I was the only one to make this subtle, evil connection. It does speak directly to our current leadership, doesn't it?
While there is much about the Clinton (and other) plans I don't like, the pro-insurance-industry posturing of the current Republican candidates points only to their elitist, fascist agendas.
Posted by: Melody at September 18, 2007 03:35 PMI think the key word is competition. If you look at the competitive aspects of a Republican plan and a Democratic plan it is clear that each wants to create competition thru a different mechanism. Rove's article is unimpressive in its simplicity.
Posted by: Sam at September 19, 2007 12:43 AM