RSS 2.0 Follow Us!
 

Related Posts

WSJ: Yes, ObamaCare Was Designed as a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer

Morgen on July 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Score one for the Wall Street Journal (and VS, I might add). Just yesterday I was lamenting that the broader media had not picked up on the “ObamaCare as Trojan Horse” story line that we’ve been documenting now for over 2 months. From today’s Opinion page at the WSJ, The Public Option Two-Step:

The reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is because they know it is an opening wedge for the government to dominate U.S. health care. That’s also why the health-care industry, business groups, some moderates and most Republicans are opposed. Team Obama likes the policies of the first group but wants the political support of the second. And they’re trying to solve this Newtonian problem — irresistible forces, immovable objects — by becoming less and less candid about the changes they really favor.

A rhetorical gong Mr. Obama has been banging a lot lately is the idea that the people pointing all this out are liars. “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care,” he said in one speech, “know this: They’re not telling the truth.” He adds that opposition to a public option isn’t “based on any evidence” and that it is “illegitimate” to argue that his program is “is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”

So much for changing the political tone. Perhaps the President should check in with his more honest liberal allies. Jacob Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, came up with the intellectual architecture for the public option when he was a graduate student in the 1990s. “Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan horse for single payer,’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there,’” Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. “I’m telling you, we’re going to get there, over time, slowly.”

The reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is because they know it is an opening wedge for the government to dominate U.S. health care. That’s also why the health-care industry, business groups, some moderates and most Republicans are opposed. Team Obama likes the policies of the first group but wants the political support of the second. And they’re trying to solve this Newtonian problem — irresistible forces, immovable objects — by becoming less and less candid about the changes they really favor.
A rhetorical gong Mr. Obama has been banging a lot lately is the idea that the people pointing all this out are liars. “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care,” he said in one speech, “know this: They’re not telling the truth.” He adds that opposition to a public option isn’t “based on any evidence” and that it is “illegitimate” to argue that his program is “is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”
So much for changing the political tone. Perhaps the President should check in with his more honest liberal allies. Jacob Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, came up with the intellectual architecture for the public option when he was a graduate student in the 1990s. “Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan horse for single payer,’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there,’” Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. “I’m telling you, we’re going to get there, over time, slowly.”
The real question the political class is debating now is how slowly, or quickly, it takes to get there. And how they’re best able to disguise this goal — ideally as a “compromise.”

The real question the political class is debating now is how slowly, or quickly, it takes to get there. And how they’re best able to disguise this goal — ideally as a “compromise.”

Hopefully this is just the beginning of this story line making its way into the broader discussion on health care reform. As I mentioned yesterday, I think it will also be very important for GOP leaders in Congress to highlight this deception as a basis for their opposition to any form of public plan. (In addition to the substantive arguments against it).

I expect to see the pro-ObamaCare forces attempt to counter the WSJ’s assertion in short order. Which should be interesting because I think the only way they can counter the truth about this is with…more lies, of course. Which we will be sure to highlight!

H/T: Heritage

Post to Twitter

Category: Health & Education, Politics |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.