Those dang Democrats. As Sen. Orrin Hatch has pointed out, the real reason Republicans oppose health care reform is because it will help people.
Can you imagine? A government that wants to help its citizens.
We are not making this up. Hatch said it plainly: If health care reform goes through, it's likely to help so many people with their medical costs that they'll vote Democratic forever, thus ensuring a future dominated by Democrats.
This is highly dubious assertion on several counts, of course, but it's an also illustration of the Right's resistance to common sense and political reality.
Read the story here.
8 comments:
"The mystery of the right wing freakout becomes a bit more clear"
In theory, the Republicans are the party of Big Business, but for their base, they are really the party of aggrieved privilege, of straight white men trying desperately to resist equality between all citizens that would deprive them of their unearned superior station in society. This is why the mantra for Republicans has been “god, guns, and gays"---all three are actually about one thing, maintaining not just a specific image of masculinity, but suggesting those who fit it are better than everyone else.
“God” is about a very specific, traditional, patriarchal god who teaches that women are second class citizens and men are the head of the household.
“Guns”, well, I don’t think we need to explain that---it’s laughably obvious, and speaks to the lack of sophistication that this reactionary movement amongst at least the majority of white men.
“Gays” are a threat to traditional gender roles, as well.
(More at Pandagon)
Make it up? No, you wouldn't do that.
Read so badly that people might wonder if you even bother to try to understand? That, you might do.
...Sen. Orrin Hatch...pointed out, the real reason Republicans oppose health care reform is because...it's likely to help so many people with their medical costs that they'll vote Democratic forever, thus ensuring a future dominated by Democrats.
That, ladies and gentlemen, as the original article made clear, is only one of the reasons Republicans oppose Obamacare. Hatch gave two more in the article, and you have enough wits left about you to have heard many more from other Republicans, if you have paid attention to anyone save the Daily Kos. Saying that that is "the real reason" is a misrepresentation both of the facts and of what Hatch said.
You know, anymore, I instantly regret wasting my time commenting here, as I really do not think you will ever seriously examine even the smallest challenge to your pitifully limited worldview, and there is no point in discussing things with you. But having wasted my time commenting earlier, I really ought to clarify one thing, something that I thought of on my way home: instead of Saying that that is "the real reason" is a misrepresentation both of the facts and of what Hatch said, I should have written: Saying that that is "the real reason" is a misrepresentation of the facts and a ridiculously juvenile oversimplification of what Hatch said.
I'll hush now. No point in wasting my breath.
Sen. Hatch's interview was with a conservative site, CNS.com, so it was hardly on unfriendly turf.
Hatch asserted that the health bills, which he believes represent a "step-by-step approach to socialized medicine," will lead to Americans' dependence on Democrats for their health and other issues.
"And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, 'All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party.'"
The other two reasons Hatch cited:
"During the interview, the Utah Republican worried about the health bill's provisions on public funding for abortion as well as the potential unconstitutionality of the individual mandate conservatives have argued."
His first reason is the most interesting, and reflects a justified fear that the GOP may become superfluous. He casts it as a dependence on the Democratic Party, but politically, the GOP is very afraid of Democrats getting credit for improving and saving lives.
Fiscally, the current system is a nightmare. Surely a true conservative would want reform if for that reason alone.
If Hatch feels that way, why not take a strong stand against Medicare (clearly a form of socialized medicine)? Because even the teabaggers don't want to give it up.
MotW apparently doesn't challenge AT's "liberal" interpretation of Hatch's actual statement.
AT reformulated it as:
"If health care reform goes through, it's likely to help so many people with their medical costs that they'll vote Democratic forever, thus ensuring a future dominated by Democrats."
MotW implicitly accepted that by saying:
"That, ladies and gentlemen, as the original article made clear, is only one of the reasons Republicans oppose Obamacare."
I predict that if some sort of healthcare bill passes, and I'm not certain that it will, it will prove to be so popular that it will be untouchable in a few years. Kind of like medicare, which I have yet to find the Republican eligible for it who wants to see it go.
Let's look a little closer at what Hatch actually said:
"And if they (Americans) get there (to socialized medicine and dependence on Democrats for their health and other issues,) of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, 'All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party.'"
He seems to suggest that accepting better healthcare would limit the upward aspirations of average Americans. They would lose the motivational factor of seeing big-shots like Hatch with cushy medical plans, while barely scraping by (or not) themselves.
Does Hatch believe Americans will be unwilling to cast votes for a non-Democratic candidate, due to their acquired taste for adequate healthcare?
Does he believe that Republicans will be unable to formulate an attractive platform once voters have healthcare similar to that in other developed countries?
So sad to have disappointed his nibs with our "pitifully limited worldview." I must make a note to expand mine to encompass the wondrous truths of Young Earth Creationism sometime.
Post a Comment