Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Obama is spending a lot of time these days impressing upon his listeners that Obamacare doesn't mean the end of health care as we know it - rather it is just an expansion of an already good thing. This is a necessary tack for him to take, inasmuch as opinion polls show that most Americans are satisfied with their own health care plans, and don't wish to exchange them for something run by the government. In excess of 80% of recently-polled Americans expressed fear that Obama's health care reforms would make their current level of care more expensive, would decrease the quality of care, or would result in rationing of some sort.
And even among those who seek expansion of governmental involvement in health care, typical complaints are that something "needs to be done for children and the elderly."
"Something needs to be done, especially to help the kids and the elderly," said [Sharon] Williams, 48, who works for the school district in Forsyth County, Ga [and who voted for Obama]. "But if the reforms affect the insurance I have now, I would have a deep issue with it." Of course, something is already being done for the elderly and children - S-CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare (parts A, B, C, D, and E)... but her utter lack of awareness of this fact and her location within a public school identify her as the somewhat typical Obama voter.
In a speech in 2003, Obama was at least honest about his incipient socialism. He states, "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care programs."
He further assures his listeners (at about :35 of the above video) that "a single payer, universal health-care plan - that's what I'd like to see. But, as all of you know, we may not get that immediately. because we've got to take that to the White house, and we've got to take that to the Senate..." (emphasis added).
Then, in 2007, while addressing the SEIU, Obama states very clearly that his intent is to "eliminate" private insurance, though it probably will not be possible "immediately," and may need to wait "15 or 20 years out."
How odd, then, that less than a full 24 hours after these videos began to be disseminated in mass, that the White House would respond with an allegation that Obama's own words represent "disinformation" about his own position!
It seems to me that we have been here before (and not just in the Clinton administration); yes, wasn't it just this past weekend - and this same group of people - that was gloating all over the Sunday talk shows that tax increases on those earning less than $250,000 were not "off the table?" Only to be assured by Robert Gibbs on Monday that, in fact, Obama does not (yet) intend to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 per year?
Which to believe? How about none of them?
Is there something in the water that makes Democrats congenital liars? Or is it perhaps a strategy...?