If you can make it through the first vomitous paragraphs where Camille can’t stop praising Pelosi for having a vagina, she puts together some of the best descriptions of the healthcare nightmare bill I’ve seen yet.
But this rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can’t my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators?
Petty dictators is about all we have left in Washington now, Camille. Nice of you to notice.
A second issue souring me on this bill is its failure to include the most common-sense clause to increase competition and drive down prices: portability of health insurance across state lines. What covert business interests is the Democratic leadership protecting by stopping consumers from shopping for policies nationwide? Finally, no healthcare bill is worth the paper it’s printed on when the authors ostentatiously exempt themselves from its rules. The solipsistic members of Congress want us peons to be ground up in the communal machine, while they themselves gambol on in the flowering meadow of their own lavish federal health plan. Hypocrites!
Ironically (or perhaps not so), purchasing insurance across state lines is one of the reforms urged in the GOP health plan. I wonder if that makes Camille feel icky.
And why are we even considering so gargantuan a social experiment when the nation is struggling to emerge from a severe recession? It’s as if liberals are starry-eyed dreamers lacking the elementary ability to project or predict the chaotic and destabilizing practical consequences of their utopian fantasies. Republicans, on the other hand, have basically sat on their asses about healthcare reform for the past 20 years and have shown little interest in crafting legislative solutions to social inequities. The usual GOP floater about private medical savings accounts is a crock — something that, given the astronomical costs of major medical crises, would be utterly unworkable for families of even average household income.
International models of socialized medicine have been developed for nations and populations that are usually vastly smaller than our own. There are positives and negatives in their system as in ours. So what’s the point of this trade? The plight of the uninsured (whose number is far less than claimed) should be directly addressed without co-opting and destroying the entire U.S. medical infrastructure. Limited, targeted reforms can ban gouging and unfair practices and can streamline communications now wastefully encumbered by red tape. But insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry are not the sole cause of mounting healthcare costs, and constantly demonizing them is a demagogic evasion.
How dare anyone claim humane aims for this bill anyhow when its funding is based on a slashing of Medicare by over $400 billion? The brutal abandonment of the elderly here is unconscionable. One would have expected a Democratic proposal to include an expansion of Medicare, certainly not its gutting. The passive acquiescence of liberal commentators to this vandalism simply demonstrates how partisan ideology ultimately desensitizes the mind.
Again, she pretty much gets it right, which makes me feel icky. While much of the rest of her column is the usual bilge, you must give credit where it’s due.
Share
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 11:13 pm and is filed under Bedwetting Leftists, Commies, Healthcare.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:47 am
It’s as if liberals are starry-eyed dreamers
Well, that was the funny part. But I’m wondering if she has noticed that “starry-eyed dreamers” and “incompetent” and “unaccountable” and “gargantuan” and “vandalism” often crop up together.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Yeah, I read her once in a while and have even watched her on TV. Damn she can talk fast. She is a feminist without being a man hater, which is too damn rare. However, she is a certified Ivy League wealth redistributionist pinko who I suspect when shifted into shrew mode, would scare the hell out of the manliest of men.
As you say, it looks like she gets this one (health care), but is she going to convince anyone, or anyone with a vote in the Senate?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:08 am
I have found myself agreeing with her on a lot of things. Some that we could probably argue about, but she’s strongly against the fairness doctrine for one. Scroll down and read the question from the “lesbian conservative in New York”. Paglia’s reply is right on. Besides her stand against the tyranny of the Fairness Doctrine she went on to say this about radio:
She’s the only freedom loving liberal left in our country. The radicals have taken over and moved to her left. My question for her would be, if the party you belong to has turned into a bunch of adolescent tyrants and have abandoned the creed, are they really the party you loved in the first place?
November 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
She should take some of that uncommon sense and stop using that butterknife to cut her hair.