There is a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty in the debate of the health reform legislation... and hypocrisy and blatant concern for big companies v. real American's. Democrats do a terrible job of pointing this out. They don't call bull shit. Essentially they repeatedly bring a knife to a gun fight.
So- today the discussion is focused on keeping the cost of legislation to less than $1 Trillion (over 10 years) even though this will only reduce the number of uninsured to 30 million from 45 million. Why is it more important to limit the cost than it is to have real reform and really help the uninsured.
I know it is entirely unrealistic to expect the media and Democrats to point out how the bar for Obama is far higher than for Bush. Because everyone knows the press was far more critical of Bush and the press is being soft on Obama.
This critical reform is not going to cost any more than Medicare Part D- not that $1 Trillion is trivial and I am not criticizing the benefits of Part D. It would just be good to put all of this in perspective.
Of course Obama's legislation has to be paid for- which is a good, but new idea. Bush funded Part D off of dept and there was no expectation to do otherwise.
Can we get the debate somewhat close to parity?