Saturday, November 14, 2009
I made that word up. It's being disingenuous with ingenuity. The White House and our Congress are superstars of disingenuity. Two examples.
"The President will not sign a health care bill that is not budget neutral."
Ingenious. Fool people into thinking that insuring 20 to 30 million people will be "budget neutral" so the bill can be rammed through Congress. We'll all feel better bc. so many more people will be covered and it won't cost a thing.
Disingenuous. Take a government class,voters. The President doesn't get to make that decision! Congress does. What has Congress's record been on limiting the cost of entitlement programs? The bill that's out there now requires 500 billion dollars in Medicare cuts in order to achieve budget neutrality. When was the last time Congress cut Medicare? Let's try maybe, never. Do you trust Congress, Pelosi, & Co. to make those cuts in order to keep the President's budget neutrality promise? It will never happen. Barry O'B can sign all the "budget neutral" bills he wants but the resulting behemoth itself will never be budget neutral.
Second example: "I promise, those who want to keep their health insurance will get to keep it."
Ingenious. Fool people into thinking that they can keep their health insurance no matter what the government does. We'll all feel better bc. so many more people will be covered and our insurance won't change.
Disingenuous. The President and Congress don't get to decide what insurance most people get. For most working American families, the employer provides the health insurance options. For most people, the individual doesn't "decide" and certainly the government doesn't decide. (And you know why? Bc. during World War II the government stuck its nose into the private sector by setting controls on salaries. Companies then began providing pension and health care benefits bc. it was illegal to raise salaries.) The point is, despite what Barry O'B and his Congressional cohorts say, no one in the government can guarantee that you will get to keep your insurance because it's your employer who decides what kind of insurance you get. His promise is hollow, conniving, rhetoric.
The question that needs to be asked is, when faced with a government option that is cheaper (and, therefore, will provide a lower quality of care), do you trust your employer to continue offering you what you have now? Or, do you think your employer--in this climate, in this competitive world economy--will say, "tough tootie, take the government option." Either way, it's your employer--that "evil corporation"--and its shareholders who will decide whether you get to keep what you have. Not Barry O'B. What will be better for the shareholders' bottom line--continuing Cadillac plans or shuffling employees off to the government option?
The mystery remains. . . does Barry O'B really believe what he's saying? Someone that bright has got to know that he's making promises he can't keep. In which case he's both disingenuous and politically ingenious.
Or maybe he's just not that bright.