With, Or Against

When liberals argue in support of their health care proposal, they fall back regularly on the either/or trick.
There shouldn’t be a country where the wealthy can always count on access to the best medical care; and the middle class is only OK until a downward economic spike throws their life, budget, and access to medical treatment into turmoil.
Either you like the status quo or you must support the socialist option. This is, obviously, a leap that is unsupported by logic. There is wide agreement that health care is sucking down an unhealthy amount of dollars. Let's make it cheaper.
Today, more Americans are perched on a precarious financial edge. When a job disappears, employer-supplied health insurance does, too. A doctor’s visit becomes a luxury.
Sure, insurance portability is an issue. Sure, everyone needs to be able to get coverage. Sure, something needs to be done to reduce the role of litigation fear on treatment decisions. So - go ahead - change the regulations - but don't bring in Nikita Khrushchev to design a new system.
Of course, there is also a third America. It is made up of the uninsured poor, who never have a shot at what the rest of the country considers a constitutional right: the ability to tap into the amazing and, yes, costly resources of a healthcare system that is envied by the rest of the world. Some Americans - regularly derided as liberals - believe it is morally right to give the less fortunate access to the same quality medical care as the rest of the country.
The problem with the Clinton/Obama cure to health care is that the legitimate systemic problems, mostly created by bad government regulation, are being used as an excuse to kidnap the system and make it into a government run model in the vision of the leftists who control the Democratic Party today.
A commitment to change the landscape for the uninsured should take nothing away from those who are lucky enough to have health insurance. But Obama’s opponents are working hard to convince average Americans thathealthcare reform means they will pay more for less.
Obama's devotion to the Public Option, clearly a stealth single payer strategy, should be the tip-off to any fair minded observer that Obama only cares about bringing the insurance reform ball across the goal line. He wants the socialist vision realized - even if deceiving the American people is what's necessary to make it happen. The Heritage Foundation commissioned a study on the effects the plan would have:
The study found that 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.9 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan.
With his lies on Iraq as a candidate, the President made it clear that, in his mind, ends justify means. By now, if he had kept the most fundamentalcommitment of his candidacy, at least 40,000 fighters would have been withdrawn from Iraq. Instead, there has been no draw down . Americans would be dumb to believe him on health care now - especially with all the evidence of his, and his party's, commitment to single payer.