Sunday Talk And David Brooks' Excellent Understatement
by Larry Perrault on March 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM
I DVR’d and watched the Sunday talk programs: FOX News Sunday, NBC’s Meet The Press, and ABC’s This Week. On the health care discussion, of course some said it would pass and some said it wouldn’t. No Democrat can predict otherwise. And, they discussed the pros and cons of the bill and the process. But I had to wonder if I was missing something. I was surprised that no one mentioned two facts that I posted on this past week.
- They talked about The House voting on the Senate-passed bill and having to trust that it would be fixed. But, no one mentioned the Republican Senators’ letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Reconciliation process would require the parliamentarian to rule on the budgetary or non-budgetary status of each item of the over two thousand page bill. Most of those changes of concern to The House are non-budgetary changes. And the Republican Senators said each point of order, which must clear a 60-vote Senate hurdle, would be stopped. Ergo, there will be no substantive fix to the bill. How can you overlook that? How can the House vote on those changes in light of that, and how can talk shows discuss the bill’s prospects without consideration of that? Did I miss something?
- There was no discussion of the 10th Amendment resolutions of a majority of states, or the resolution JUST THIS WEEK asserting rejection of national health care intrusion and control IN VIRGINIA, A STATE BORDERING ON WASHINGTON DC, where many Congress-people LIVE! What the…? No mention of potential social chaos?
David Brooks, the token Republican editorialist at The New York Times, who is a clear enough thinker though I often disagree, appeared on Meet The Press with Tom Friedman. Brooks allowed that covering 30 million more people with health insurance is a moral accomplishment (by the federal government, I think not), but that he leaned against it because it would really not reduce cost and would cost too much. THAT MAY BE THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY! It won’t just not reduce medical cost, this bill would be a financial calamity and disastrous to the country! Even putting aside inevitable rationing and increasing premiums the huge increase of taxation and regulation of private commerce will contract revenues in addition to the increased cost. Never mind what anyone likes or dislikes and wants or doesn’t want. In its current financial condition, the country can’t implement this bill in its current form for ten years, if that long.