Is the Public Option really dead? : On Obama's method
Is the public option really dead? Has Obama truly acquiesced, and given up all extremeness in his change platform, caving in in the eleventh hour? Has the debate been shelved for good - Or merely temporaily adjourned, and, as Nietzsche says, therefore destined to re-emerge even stronger?
One thing is clear: Obama would like to radically and fundamentally alter the tone of our nation. If we are pessimists, this is pernicious; if we are optimists, we eagerly await such a transformation. Health care reform is one aspect of a myriad of changes and alterations Obama has in mind. There is no point in speaking of socialism or fascist plans: The important thing, whether you are pro or anti Obama - and I am unabashedly pro - is that our nation is going through this transition/crisis/ apex of necessity. It is no accident that we have wound up where we are. There is an inescapable law of causality, a natural chronlogy, to soical evolution within the histroical process.
Therefore, I conclude that Obama is not backing down, but rather, biding his time. He is one, I have noticed, for making a pretense of being unconcerned, dispassionate. But this is merely a mask, behind which he calculates his next moves. Some see this as not quite right, making him a bit dangerous ; I think it is his shrewdness.
So, to get back from the abstract , to the paticular details, in this case, we will use the current crisis of healthcare reform ( but it applies broadly to all of Obama's plans and undertakings). From the blog ( from the opposing side), Stop Socialism Now: http://stopsocialism.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-public-option-in-health-care-plan-is-by-no-means-dead/
This is quoted by them, from the Wall Street Journal:
Yet the public option wasn’t some afterthought, or merely the obsession of Congress’s leftward fringe, says the Journal: A new government-run program would crowd out private insurers by undercutting them on consumer prices, courtesy of an intravenous drip of taxpayer dollars and its monopsony power to force doctors and hospitals to accept sub-market rates. As millions of people gravitated toward “free” coverage, the public option would also vastly expand federal management of the practice of medicine, shaping the treatments and care patients can receive to save on costs. There are plenty of other ways of “getting there” without a public option — namely, through the federally chartered insurance cooperatives now gathering momentum in the Senate: The idea of creating member-owned co-ops in the states, as Senator Kent Conrad originally proposed, isn’t necessarily harmful. But if regulated as advertised by Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, they’d be satellites of Washington and have 50 open checks drawn on the Treasury, creating the insurance industry equivalents of Fannie Mae.. . . If Democrats decide to centrally plan the insurance market, in what sense is that different from a public option?
(Source: Editorial, “The Public Option Goes Over,” Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2009.)
And David Limbaugh, a formidable force on the right, now claims openly that Obama's acquiescence is only apparent, and a smokescreen and ploy for sneaking it in after the bill has passes. (See :http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2009/08/new_column_publ.html)
Of course, I am not in agreement with all of the particular conclusions which are thereby drawn. But it does illustrate Obama's method. As the King said of Hamlet, Yea, though it be madness, there be method in it.
Most Recommended Comment
Ledgewood, New Jersey, United States