I must admit, I’m having a hard time keeping up. I’m not sure which quote I’m supposed to believe and when. There are so many people saying so many things and then coming back and telling me “no, wait, what I meant to say was . . .” Why can’t people just say what they mean and stand by it? If it were just some dolt in the grocery store or restaurant I frequented, I wouldn’t much care. But we’re talking about really important people, like a Supreme Court nominee and the President of the United States!!
For example, just a couple of weeks ago, we were having a national discussion on health care. It was so important, the President held a prime time press conference – again! What was the big news out of this press conference: single-payer? pre-conditions? universal coverage? Nope! The press was abuzz about a question the President answered near the end that had nothing to do with health care. Instead, the President inserted himself into a police matter in Cambridge, Massachusetts. When the President answered this question, he was self-assured, animated, confident. He boldly state that he didn’t know what happened in that house in Cambridge but that he thought it was clear the cops “acted stupidly” (are we sure this guy went to Harvard?). The next day, this local police matter becomes the talk of the nation. So out stomps Obama to clean up the mess he made. He comes to the podium at the daily White House press briefing looking down, much less animated, very thoughtful. He said he wished he had “calibrated” his comments better. I’m not sure what that means but I think it means he wished he hadn’t said what he said. So what am I supposed to believe? The confident off-the-cuff, shoot-from-the-hip guy who laid out the Cambridge police, or the more tempered, “calibrated” guy who came out the next day.
Just prior to that we had a week of testimony from our Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. There was quite a bit of controversy over several of her remarks. We talked about them here. One of them was that she said on many different occasions, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” For this she has been labeled everything from a pioneer to a racist. But when she got before the Senate Judicial Committee, she totally backpedaled. In her testimony, she said, “I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.” So what am I supposed to believe? Those two statements are mutually exclusive. One can’t be true if the other is true. And yet, when she wasn’t a Supreme Court nominee, she had no problem saying it. . .over. . .and over. . .and over. At least five times in speeches given over seven years. And that’s just the ones we know about. So if she really believes that, why not stand up and be proud of it? Why hedge?
Now we get to the health care debate. President Obama has said many times that his health care reform must include the freedom to keep whatever insurance you currently have if you want to. Seriously, watch.
He said it. Did you hear him? He’s been saying every time he gets in front of a microphone, which is often! But now there is video circulating from Naked Emperor News showing several times when Obama is advocating a Universal Health Care system which would replace the private insurance system we have now. Take a look.
It seems there are several advocates for a government-run universal health care in this video. Not to mention the many various times that the President expressed his preference for it. BTW, all Democrats. So once again, who am I to believe? The Obama who has committed to me on several occasions that my private insurance will still be available to me or the one who says he wants a single-payer, government-run system? Fortunately, the White House has released a video which will help me decide.
On the White House blog (did you know the White House had a blog?), they posted an article refuting the idea that the President’s health care reform would eliminate private insurance. They cited a few of the many aforementioned times he said he wasn’t going to get rid of private insurance, but made no attempt to refute the numerous times he said he would get rid of private insurance. Interesting. Why don’t we just read the bill?
There are a variety of bills in Congress but only one has made it out of committee. That is called America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. So what does the bill say about my ability to keep my insurance. My hat is off here to my friend, anamericanidiot. He has a great article about the health care reform bill and alerted me to page 16 of the bill. I recently downloaded the bill (over 1000 pages) and low and behold there it is on page 16.
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.”
So now what does that mean?!? What it means is that you can keep your coverage after the legislation takes effect as long as you don’t make any changes to your coverage. This provision effectively outlaws private health insurance. If you make any changes after the bill is in place, your insurance company will need to re-enroll you which is forbidden. I don’t know about you, but every health insurance I have had from my employer requires me to re-enroll or opt out every year. So, yes, you can keep your private health insurance. . .for no more than a year!!!
Well that’s fine if that’s what he wants to do. Why all the subterfuge? Why not just tell us what he wants and do it? Geez! The good news is that word of this is starting to get out. As Ms. Douglas points out in her White House blog video, members of Congress are taking the opportunity of the Congressional recess to go out and pitch the health care bill to their constituents. Cool! How’s that working out?
Perhaps the reason they don’t tell us what they really want to do is because they know they are not part of the mainstream of America. They know that if Ms. Sotomayor embraced her racial bias instead of trying to hide it, the only bench she would sit on is in Central Park! If we knew that the President has a racial prejudice against white police officers, regardless of the facts in a case, his role as a post-racial figure would be blown. If we knew that he really was trying to socialize health care, it would already be dead (and it may be!).
Say what you want about George Bush, he said what he was going to do and did it. You may disagree with it, but he didn’t back down. He literally dared us to vote him out of office if we disagreed with his approach. Perhaps we should believe our lying ears!