There are now officially two kinds of Democrats: those who get it and those who don’t.
Further down on the same page is a screed by Froma Harrop, not one of my favorite opiners, who clearly demonstrates which kind of Democrat she is:
It was the worst state to test public feelings about reform, says Froma Harrop
The miracle in Massachusetts was made possible through a bigger miracle four years ago. That’s when the commonwealth became the first and so far only state to guarantee near-universal coverage. The Republican winner of the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy, Scott Brown, voted for the legislation as a state senator. In vowing to be the key 41st vote against the Democrats’ health care reforms, Brown carefully added that Massachusetts voters should not worry about their own health care security: They already have it through the state program.
Thus, Massachusetts was the worst state in which to test the wider public’s feelings about national health care reform. Polls showed people in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, unhappy with the legislation in Washington. But those numbers include many who thought the reforms too weak or were simply disgusted by the legislative sausage-making. Whether these proposals were better than nothing is a meaningless question to people who already have something.
Their damp enthusiasm for Washington’s reforms belies the popularity of the state reforms enacted in 2006. “It’s not perfect,” a Brown supporter told a reporter, “but why should we have to pay again when we have health care?” Not perfect is an understatement. Unlike the legislation in Congress, the Massachusetts plan made virtually no effort to contain spiraling health care costs. That makes the plan, which Brown still supports, far less conservative than the national version he opposes.
Even though their reforms are superior, Democrats in Washington could have done better still by not trying to please everyone (including Republicans, who were just playing with them). But despite their control of the White House and majorities in Congress, Democrats seemed capable only of reacting to critics, of cringing with fear under even the most ludicrous attacks.
If you don’t have the courage of your convictions, it doesn’t matter whether your party has 59 or 60 or 65 seats in the Senate. Under President George W. Bush, Republicans got whatever they wanted with 50 senators.
Do you see what she doesn't get?
She doesn't get the very essence of our FEDERAL system! The fact that Massachusetts approached their problem and dealt with it in balance with their own state priorities is critical here. That is what the founding fathers designed for us!
She doesn't get that paying for what you receive is decidedly conservative while redistributing property through a system of convoluted taxes, penalties, subsidies, kickbacks, pay-offs, favoritist deals and corruption is what the people object to and will not tolerate.
She doesn't get that quality healthcare costs money and "containing" costs at a level significant enough to provide a free lunch to those presently uninsured will not result in quality care but in inferior and rationed treatments. MA seems to have been wise and prudent in removing that component of the issue from their consideration.
She doesn't get exactly how George W. Bush was able to do that thing with only 50 senators and the Bamster seems confounded by a super-majority of his minions.
Clearly she doesn't get it when she blindly asserts, "even though their reforms are superior..." She's one of those who still doesn't get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment