Doubling down on her bet that demonizing your opponents is always better than making anything resembling a cohesive argument, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today reiterated her support of a “public option” being included in whatever health care legislation that ends up bubbling forth from the fetid back rooms of Congress (emphasis mine):
WASHINGTON (AP) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the case is growing stronger for allowing the government to sell health insurance in competition with private companies.
The California Democrat said Thursday that any doubts about the need for a so-called public option as part of health care overhaul legislation should be laid to rest by recent actions of the health insurance industry.
She was referring to the industry funding a study and ad campaign to attack a health care bill in the Senate.
Although the public option remains unpopular with business groups, conservatives and some moderate Democrats, Pelosi says it is imperative to help middle-class families afford insurance–and will be included in the strongest form possible in the House’s health care bill.
The title of that AP article is astounding, isn’t it? “Pelosi makes case”. What in anything written there by author Erica Werner suggests that anyone is “making a case” for anything? Where I come from (Earth), the term “making a case” implies at least some level of argument. Does Nancy Pelosi really think that she’s “arguing” for a government option merely by pointing out that the insurance industry released a report opposing it? Moreover, does Ms. Werner believe that that’s what Ms. Pelosi is doing? What’s that old saying? “One lies and the other swears to it?” Seems more and more appropriate these days as the “news” falls more and more in line with Democrat talking points.
Reasonable people may disagree over the viability of a “public” health insurance option. Neither Ms. Pelosi, nor her apologist, Ms. Werner, however, offer anything approaching such reasonable disagreement. What they do offer is the lazy alternative of demonizing the health insurance industry for having the audacity to oppose a public option by offering statistics to support their claim. Imagine that. Statistics. We are to jump fully on board the “public option” express because the insurance industry dared to suggest it might be a bad idea. The thing, we are told, speaks for itself.
It should occur to Americans that perhaps one reason for the Democrats remaining fuzzy on the details of their plan to massively intrude on the health care industry is the innate understanding by Democrats that these details are pretty scary to most Americans and should probably be kept hidden as long as possible. Can’t say as I blame them, right? If I wanted to rob your house, the last thing I’d want to do is tell you when. The trick for Americans is to be skeptical of what’s missing from the “debate” and to bounce the Democrats before the curtain goes up on their carnival.