Sunday, March 21, 2010


Obama stickhandled his health care plan through the US House of Representatives today. Despite some vicious, blatant scare-mongering from the far right and corporate special interests, it appears 32 million more Americans will have access to health care that only the rich have taken for granted.
Although the rhetoric about 'government take-over of the health industry' is pure balderdash, the concerns that it may be unaffordable -- considering the sway and power the military interests hold over the national treasury -- is still to be answered.
The media for the most part has covered both sides of the argument with some semblance of balance (FoxNews being the biggest and expected exception). The opponents to Obama's plan have used every level of scurrilous attack possible to pressure and frighten both the general public and the politicians on the hot seat.
Perhaps one of the other reasons the tea partiers have dug deep and dirty is that their braintrust knows its history. The last time a US President undertook a radical, innovative government aid program during a time of economic turmoil, the success and connection with the American voter was enough to lock up the White House for the Democrats for 20 years.
I'm not saying that the health care plan is 2010's version of the New Deal, but certainly some on the right are worried about that. Not only have they not wrestled with their own guilt over the Bush-Cheney mess that was left, both nationally and internationally, they aren't interested in creating new and innovative programs to solve the problems that Americans are facing today. Not when scare tactics work so much cheaper.
Oh, and raspberry to our own CON movement -- remember Stephen Harper's non-committal non-support of Canada's health care system when Republicans tried to use it to paint national health care as a socialist boogieman? Well, at least one CON leader stood up for it, but it wasn't Harper. Was it because in Harper's mind he'd rather side with the tea-baggers?
Again, more proof that the CON man is not a leader.

No comments: