If I see one more clip of Obama saying we can keep our health care, period and the talking head proceed to bug a guest into say the President LIED, I'm going to get violent. Then the host usually trots out a litany of citizens who have either lost their coverage or have seen their cost skyrocket. Okay. I get it! How many times is that dead horse going to be beaten?
I beg to question, however, why don't they get it? The disastrous roll out of the health care website is due to a lot of things, none of which have anything to do with the actual content of the bill. You could say it shows the government should never get involved in anything in which it lacks expertise. Which is just about everything. It's a given but about as possible under this administration as Ted Cruz's attempt to defund the bill.
They're going to meddle because it's the nature of the beast. Those in high places always think they know more than the rest of us even though most of them are there for no more than having been a loyal supporter of the man who holds the top job.
In truth, the problem with the bill is it's content. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when unnecessary benefits are added, demanded, the price is going to increase. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that those increased prices are going to preclude a lot of the very people they need because of that additional cost. It should be easy to see that by saying only 5% or 15% of the people are being effected is ignoring the number of bodies actually effected which is in the millions. A percentage is far more palatable and masks the fact real people with real needs make up that percentage. I could break it down even further but for space and time constraints.
Could the pundits help the case? I think so but they won't because they have no imagination as to how to program plus it's easier to harangue than offer something of substance.
What would I do? I'd seek out the Republicans who have had good ideas about how to fix the problem sit down for a serious panel discussion all in one place at the same time. I'd have each lay out their ideas. I'd not interrupt. I'd not allow them to interrupt each other.
When they were finished I'd ask them why they don't take themselves off the air, sit down together and piece together the best of each idea. Then they select the most dynamic among them to be the spokesman for the plan and present it to the people in every venue that would have them. And fight for those who wouldn't. Just to keep it fair. If, say, MSNBC said no thanks, let it be known by every means available.
Yep. That's what I'd do. It's the Dogwalk solution for Congressional inertia and media complacency.