Next time a politician says somthing about the public option, how it isn't practical, or isn't possible, or how the government can't run a public health program or whatever, I want the person asking the questions to say the following:
"You heard it here first folks, Senator X (Baucus maybe?) will be fighting hard in congress to cancel medicare, medicaid and the VA hospital system for our vets."
Oh course they, including any republican this is directed at, will shoot back quickly
"No I didn't say that at all."
Didn't you?
When you base your argument against public healthcare on the fact that public healthcare simply can't work, or even when it does work, is so poor and ineffective that we should replace it with private healthcare, then logically you would be fighting to end this terrible practice that is public healthcare.
Well, we have this "terrible practice" in place already: Medicare, Medicaid and the VA.
So you can't be against public healthcare, and IN FAVOR OF the other 3.
So why doesn't anyone hold these people accountable on these issues?
Why is it that when someone uses the Luntz talking points, saying something like "we don't want to put a government paper pusher between a person and their doctor" why doesn't whoever is doing the interview say "Well, that isn't how it works with medicare, and the public option would basically work like medicare right? So are you saying now that you believe that the medicare program should be cancelled, or are you just lying through your teeth in the previous statement?"
What if every Senator who comes out against "public healthcare" had mailings go out in their state suggesting that they might be working to end medicare? It wouldn't be inaccurate if they in fact are idologically opposed to public healthcare would it? That would really turn some heads, the kind of heads that vote.
It's late, please forgive typos and spelling :)