Saturday, November 7, 2009

“I WISH YOU COULD HAVE COME UP WITH A BETTER STORY; I FELT DISTINCTLY LIKE AN IDIOT REPEATING IT.”

11/7/09

There are plenty of decent arguments against the House health insurance bill, which most of the media, and the country, continues to mistakenly call a “health care” bill (See my numerous posts on this subject over the last few months.), but the GOP persists in making a decidedly asinine argument against the measure. In fact, this argument is so inane that it makes the House bill look far better than it probably is by exposing its main opponents for the frauds that they are.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, never one to make an intelligent argument when advancing an idiotic argument is easier, repeated this risible contention yesterday when he said:

“American do not want a trillion dollar government takeover of health care that increases costs and lets Washington bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.” (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Boehner’s specious argument provides yet more evidence, as if more evidence were needed, of the complete separation from reality that characterizes the political class, regardless of Party. Just what planet does Mr. Boehner inhabit? Where are medical decisions made by doctors and patients? Medical decisions are currently made by insurance companies. Under the “health care” schemes being hatched by the Democrats, such decisions will either continue to be made either by health insurance companies, who, as it turns out, will (Surprise!) be the chief beneficiaries of both the House and Senate bills, or by government health bureaucrats. But the doctor and the patient? They will remain as they are now…nearly completely out of the decision making loop…regardless of what happens with the “health care” bill.

One would think that the Republicans would be able to make a more compelling argument against the proposed “health care” legislation. That they can’t tells us a great deal about either the mental firepower these patheticos wield or the underlying strength of the House “health care” legislation. I suspect the former.

No comments: