Rant #1: Health Care

A friend of mine recently forwarded this opinion piece written by former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  Before I get into it, I want to make one thing clear.  Raise your hand if you're from a country with public health care.  No?  Well guess what: I am.  That's right, I was born and raised in Canada (although I'm also an American citizen, own a gun, etc.).  Republicans like to claim that the Canadian health care system is bad, but guess what: it's fantastic.  So are the health care systems in England, France, Germany, and Japan.  Sure they're not perfect, but guess what, neither is our private system.  Under our private system, treatments take forever to get approved, it often takes a long time to see a doctor (even in the emergency room), and the insurance companies do everything they can to deny you coverage.  You don't always get the doctor you want and you often don't get the medication or treatments that you want.  Sometimes the insurance companies will condemn people to death because they simply don't want to pay for the treatment.

That's what we have right now.  Believe me, the Canadian system is better.  I know better than you, and I sure as hell know better than Fox News.

All right, here's the article:

Mr. President, what's the rush?

Obama could learn a thing or two about health care reform from
Massachusetts. One, time is not the enemy. Two, neither are the
Republicans.

Here's my reply:

"Found this article interesting" - this from the guy who still listens
to Michael "I'm Out of my Goddamn Mind" Savage.  An article from USA
Today, the bastion of intellectualism, written by Mitt Romney, the
shining star of God knows what (sorry, my sarcasm tank is empty).  Not
that this deserves a real response, but here goes.



First, the President started by trying to work with the Republicans. 
Only when they closed their eyes, plugged their ears, and screamed
"NOOOO!!!!" in unison did he give that up.  Mitt Romney may have worked
with Democrats once upon a time, but he's not a senator or a
congressman.  If he can get the minority party in either house to play
nice, then good for him.  Otherwise stfu and gtfo.



Next, his central premise (wrapped in shiny paper) is "no public health
option."  Of course it is.  He's a Republican.  "Oh, the private
industry can do a fine job."  Sure it can.  (Hey, I guess there was a
little bit left in the sarcasm tank after all.)



Is there really a rush?  Well, the country won't collapse if we wait
another year for health care reform, but if we don't do it now several
things will happen: (1) we'll have lost the impetus, (2) it will no
longer be Obama's first year in office and he'll have lost his own
momentum, and (3) it'll be an election year, and DC will be even more
of a shitstorm than it normally is.  No way we'll be doing any major,
landmark legislation in an election year.  Is Romney really so stupid
as to not realize that, or was his candy-coated talk about
"bipartisanship" really meant as a Trojan horse the entire time?



Finally, we need to do the health care, if for no other reason then
because the Republicans oppose it.  Since coming into office, both
Pelosi and Obama have chalked up a stellar string of victories.  And
now with filibuster immunity in both the house and the senate, the
juggernaut has only grown.  Rather than come up with policies or a
message, the Republicans' sole strategy is to try to derail the health
care plan.  "If we do that, we'll WIN.  And Obama will LOSE.  And then
people will totally vote for us again!"  We need to make health care
work because we can't let the Republicans claim victory at Obama's
expense.



That sounds like the worst kind of partisanship, but the Republicans
dug that hole.  If you pick a fight with a 200-lb guy at a biker bar,
don't act surprised when you end up in a fight with a 200-lb biker
dude.  When you insist that someone has to lose, you're creating the
possibility that it might be you.  They've left us with only two
options: either they get to loudly proclaim victory before the election
next year, or we do.  (Did I mention we have a filibuster-proof
majority in both houses?)



J<