"The Governor's trash talking tells us more about the Republican approach to governance than it does about the failures of IHS. In an interview with Journal reporter Kevin Woster, Governor Rounds explained: "Right now in South Dakota, we've got one of the best examples of a health-care system run amok, and that is Indian Health...And I wouldn't wish that health care on anybody. It would be an absolute disaster in America." Governor Rounds went on to conclude, "It's what I fear if we go to a public option only, which is what I'm afraid we'd end up with."
The Governor's interview was political smoke and mirrors. First, no one in the White House or Congress is suggesting that the nation create a "public option only..." system. Such a proposal is not in any bill, and has never been advocated by the White House.
Second, Governor Rounds claimed the Indian Health Service model was "the only example (of a public system) we've got to rely on. And if they can't fix that, how can they fix the nation's system?" In western South Dakota, of all places, the Governor should understand how our population is dependent on the Veteran's Administration, which is an unapologeticly socialist system, and Medicare, which is a government-financed single-payer system. The Governor knows full well that both systems are wildly popular. A citizen might as well ask him; "Do you favor eliminating the Veterans Administration and Medicare?"
The Governor's comments raise a very curious and important question. If the VA and Medicare are socialist, effective, and popular, why is IHS ineffective and unpopular? It has everything to do with politics."
4 comments:
"First, no one in the White House or Congress is suggesting that the nation create a "public option only..." system. Such a proposal is not in any bill, and has never been advocated by the White House."
Single-payer is not in the bill, but Obama is on record saying that is the end game. The bill is the trojan horse. What do you think...they can come right out and be honest about turning America into a communist country? Can they come right out and define "change"?
Steve, are the Canadians "communists?"
How about the Germans?
Again, Sibson exemplifies the GOP strategy of arguing against the boogey man they wish were in the room rather than the actual policies being considered.
From Rafe Colburn: "The health care reforms that are being proposed will make life better for almost everyone in America, if for no other reason than because they will alleviate the fear of losing your health insurance if you lose your job, or using up your “maximum lifetime benefit” if you get really sick, or being subjected to recission if you start drawing on your health insurance too much. In the meantime, we have one political party opposing all of these reforms because they are afraid of the political consequences if they pass. In terms of game theory that makes sense, but in terms of public service, it is barbaric."
By the way, thanks for the Hurst link. Indeed, the VA and Medicare work swimmingly. Medicaid isn't bad either. I don't hear anyone, certainly not the direct beneficiaries of those programs, crying socialism and calling for their dismantling. Could someone bring that up at the next tea party? Please?
Uh oh... I feel a Sibby-surge coming on: "Dismantling Medicare is not in the Tea Party speeches, but that is their end game! These Tea Parties are a Trojan horse! What do you think... the Tea Partiers can come right out and be honest about turning America into an anarcho-capitalist morass in which Grandma really will die sooner?"
Post a Comment