The Ezra opens his eyes*...
(T)he short-term danger of a Scott Brown victory is not Scott Brown in the Senate, or even 41 Republicans in the Senate. It's Democrats freaking out and abandoning the House bill. But on the merits, this is just absurd. If health-care reform was a good idea last week, it's a good idea next week -- and just as feasible.
But... what if it
wasn't a good idea last week either, and you were just flogging it with others who have since come to their senses?
That's what the American people are
trying to tell youse elites:
America didn’t vote for Obama for some massive extension of federal programs, but rather because they believed he would turnaround the economy and lead us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
They don't want to lock into another massive entitlement program when we've got such problems ahead with the ones we've already committed to. And putting national healthcare reform before immigration reform is pretty much pointless for solving the coverage problems.
The "independent" research supporting the need for this bill that everyone was basing the facts on, at best,
appears to be compromised because Gruber, the independent adviser that Klein and Krugman cited again and again, turns out wasn't so independent afterall. Even if you think Gruber might have come up with the same analysis if he hadn't been paid to produce those particular results, the study is now tainted. A second opinion (or third or fourth) is necessary to separate the independent economic analysis from the advocating economists more interested in playing political games than remaining independent.
If the healthcare fix is the only way to save the insurance industries, and will pay for itself, fine. Prove your case, and make it to the American people. Convince us to voluntarily sign a contract and participate. Trying to sneak in a bad bill now in order to pass ... something!, will only show contempt for the will of the American people. If the Massachusetts seat was a referendum on national healthcare, listen to the results.
And next time around, don't be so afraid of hurting someone's feelings or being called "uncivil" just because under the First Amendement you can call a spade a spade; you can question the "expertise" of the well-educated kiddos with not a drop of real-world experience under their belts, save for failed startups or graduate degree grades; and you can loudly and strenuously call BULLSHIT when what the elite experts are dishing up is pretty much ... crap. If enough voters think you're forcing them to eat a crap sandwich, I'd work on your recipe first, before putting it on the menu.
Whatever happens today in Massachusetts, or in the coming weeks on the floors of the Congress, Americans will remain vigilant. We won't accept -- unquestioned -- the experts cramming another unfunded mandate onto the pocketbooks of regular Americans in uncertain economic times, all because ...
thousands of people are dying because of lack of health insurance and we've got to do something (
anything!) to keep a bad bill afloat.
Sometimes doing nothing is actually the best option, rather than dragging other people into an unhealthy pool. If you're of a conservative mindset and accept the consequences of your individual choices in life, you get this. If you're just starting out, and think fulfilling your political wishlist is kinda like opening a wedding gift registry -- signing up for shiny new products that somebody else is going to over-pay for -- what can I tell ya?** Life'll teach ya that resources aren't infinite, and good wishes don't translate into lifesaving actions without a lot of hard dirty work accompanying a strong will.
I've never been much a chanter at hockey games ("Bulllll - shit!"... "OVER -- rated!! OVER -- rated!!") but I can see where the crowd noise gets people into the game and lets them express approval or frustration with the action on the ice. Passing legislation is the same as putting "the biscuit in the basket!" -- scoring an honest goal -- but in athletics it's a bit cleaner: every eyeball can see what's going on, and who's scoring ... or not.
You might say, these past month, the Dems have been on the powerplay. Forcing Republicans to skate their game short-handed, but they've done particularly well playing defense, killing off any scoring opportunities. Today, we're counting down the seconds left with the Dems having the man-advantage in the game, and tomorrow, if predictions are correct, the Republicans will be playing as close to full-strength as they've been since the November 2008 election. Now's when you
really want to watch the puck going from end to end: the passing, the hits, the dekes, the cross checks, the passion of the play.
Until we can figure out a way to lessen the the impact of paid lobbyists, analysts, and advocating pundits on our corrupted Congressional system, I think the American people are saying, "Leave us be. Let us take care of our own needs; those of you who feel blessed by the current system and so inclined, feel free to continue contributing to your pet causes and spending your extra money to save lives as you see fit. Freedom to choose, that's all we ask."
Let's play an honest game, one where in the end, we can all be satisfied at the conclusion of the play. Heck, is it too much to hope for a decent handshake between opponents even, once the hard-fought battle on the ice is played out?
Say what you will about skills of the wonky experts; perhaps a bit of competitive physical play might have done them some good in other areas too. A little heart-pumping, hard-breathing effort against an equally determined opponent. Grows muscles, expands lung functions. (Athletics works wonders at curing asthmatics, I hear.) I just don't understand this mentality that thinks you've got the game all won, so much that you don't think you have to lace up the skates and face your opponents under the well-established rules of play.
Maybe we could get that famous Bruin Curt Schilling to explain it to us? Or at least recruit Caroline Kennedy -- a known name -- to make a play for the legacy seat.
--------------
* Lyric sampler
here.
** Canadian naturalist
Farley Mowat writes in his autobiography of the great deal of freedom his mother and father gave him as a child, growing up in Canada.
Considering the limitations imposed on 10- or 12-year-olds today, our parents accorded us an enormous degree of freedom. Nobody seemed overly concerned about where we might go or what we might be doing. Years later I asked my father whether he and Helen had worried about our tendencies to wander far afield.
"Certainly we worried. The way a mother cat does about a kitten that wanders off after a chipmunk. But we felt that keeping you in a nice safe cage would leave you with only the vaguest and perhaps the wrongest ideas of what life was really about. Chances have to be took even by the young."
Amen, amen, and amen again. I certainly don't want my choices dictated by the those who have rarely ventured far, in their educations and professions, from their own safe cages, yet who would presume to know the world well enough to advise others how to sally forth and stay safe. Until they change their advice another day, citing imperfect knowledge, of course.
