What's Wrong with Sensible Health Care Reform?

This article by Charles Krauthammer makes perfect sense to me.

His main argument: "Do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness, and inefficiency." The reforms he advocates: Tort reform, interstate purchasing. and taxing employee benefits.

Someone tell me what's wrong with this incremental approach that he advocates?



   

One-Sided Decision?

 Just read this little blurb:

The sway held by such a small group of senators has annoyed other lawmakers, who could vote against a final bill if they think it doesn't go far enough. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he didn't think "we'll get to that." But at the same time, he warned Democratic leaders not to make too many concessions [to the moderate Democrats]. "I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country — when the public option has this much support — that (a public option is) not going to be in it," said Brown. 

(Source: AP news report on the Senate health care debate)

Besides the fact that the public option does not have "this much support," I find this to be a truly offensive statement. Senator Brown doesn't want four Democratic senators "dictating to the other 56 of us"? Aren't there other members of the Senate (i.e., Republicans)? What are they, chopped liver?

Ah, the Rhetoric

Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation - indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever face: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

Source: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Senate floor speech on the procedural vote on health care reform
November 21, 2009
Bold face font added for emphasis because it's so ridiculous. 

And Democrats accuse Republicans of fear-mongering...

A Pro-Choice Feminist Discusses the Morality of Abortion

I've always admired Naomi Wolf, pro-choice feminist though she be. Here's one of her more controversial articles, originally published in The New Republic, that got her into a lot of trouble with her "sistren,"  as I recall.

"Our Bodies, Our Souls" (October 16, 1995)
Naomi Wolf
posted on Priests for Life

Believing What They Want Us to Believe Does Not Make it So

Just watched episode # 3 of "V." One sequence of events was interesting. There was a woman protester who was becoming increasingly influential--the "face" of the insurgency, Anna called her. This woman's husband had been killed as a result of the initial chaos caused by the terrifying arrival of the Visitors, and now she was speaking out and subsequently developing quite a following. "She must be stopped," Anna, leader of the V's, warned. But Anna's method of stopping her was not to destroy her with violence but rather to win this woman over with sympathy. A quiet moment alone, consoling and comforting, was all it took, and next thing you know, the two women are standing side by side on a podium before dozens of news cameras and a huge crowd. "We are of peace, always," Anna says, while her erstwhile adversary wipes tears from her eye. Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, an earlier scene of impending violence had been effectively quelled when the FBI managed to apprehend a man who had threatened to attack the V's. Later we learn that the shooter, who was taken into custody by the Visitors, was himself a V, assigned by Anna to commit the assault. The happy ending played well on the podium. Everything was staged, the agitated crowds quieted, the protesters subdued, and all was well. Another mission accomplished. Yet it was all an illusion.

This is how I feel about what's going on in Washington D.C. right now. Numbers are being manipulated, facts concealed, assurances and promises made, the public mollified. But the promise of health care reform, creation of jobs...it's all an illusion. What is truth, and does it matter, anyway, as long as people believe what they want to believe?

Gambling Away Our Trust?

Tonight I read a couple of San Diego Union-Tribune editorials that raise some questions in my mind about whether I can trust my elected officials in Washington. Cynical readers might think I am speaking tongue in cheek, and perhaps I am.

The first one addresses the massive health care bill that the House of Representatives just passed, calling it a "disgrace" and a "recipe for ruin." It criticizes Nancy Pelosi for breaking her promise to post the entire bill online for 72 hours before allowing the members to vote, but acknowledges that the bill would have passed anyway.  The House "simply didn’t care that a bill with a 10-year, $1.2 trillion price tag was rife with unexamined problems," the editorial says. "It was time to make history, according to these Democrats’ talking points, so they did."

The other one addresses the Obama Administration's claims about how its stimulus bill "saved or created" jobs have been proven to be grossly exaggerated. They cite as one example the Associate Press report that "some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times." The Union-Tribune maintains that "this is a scandal and should be treated as such," and that it "appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas." Their conclusion: "When it comes to the economic stimulus package, it sure looks like the Obama White House doesn't want an honest debate."

Add to this the number of jobs saved or created in congressional districts that don't even exist (!), and it's apparent to me that some of our elected officials are becoming reckless in their disdain for truth. But why? They remind me of gamblers, hopelessly addicted to the thrill of the game but running out of chips. So now they're wagering a huge bet using a stacked deck and counterfeit bills and praying they can get out of town with their winnings before the posse arrives. Perhaps they will. But who will be left behind to pay the dealer?

A Recipe for Ruin
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 10, 2009

 Stimulus Dishonesty
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 11, 2009

Recovery.gov Shows Money Flowing to Nonexistent Districts
Washington Times, Nov 17, 2009

Disturbing Insights about Health Care Reform from a Liberal Economist

Apparently it is as conservatives fear, according to a self-described liberal supporter of "universal health care." John Cassidy of The New Yorker has written a candid assessment of the current proposal to reform health care. Though he supports the current administration's attempt to overhaul the health care system (he regards the expansion of the government's safety net as "ethically essential, economically justified, and long overdue"), as an economist, he also feels obligated to "count the dollars," as he says at the end of his essay.

Some of his more startling comments:

A. If this health care reform goes through as currently proposed by the Democrats, top wage earners could face a 60% tax rate in some states (after factoring in state and local taxes, social security, and Medicare).

B. We will be dealing with the consequences of this reform "for decades to come."

C. Some "subterfuge may be necessary" to enact "great reform."

D. The Obama Administration is creating a new entitlement program which, if enacted, "will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Nevertheless, Cassidy still believes that "expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy."

Here's the article in full. 

"Some Vaguely Heretical Thoughts," by John Cassidy
The New Yorker, November 4, 2009

Maybe This Way Someone Will Actually Read the House Bill?

I just read in Politico that Republican Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma is "threatening" to have the entire House health care bill read on the floor of the Senate if it passes (which it did, yesterday, by a vote of 220-215). Some Democratic aides are accusing Coburn of attempting to stall debate, calling him an obstructionist ("Dr. No"). Right. Better not to read the bill and just pass the thing. Why bother with the nuisance of actually reading it?

Coburn Threatening to Have Bill Read on Senate Floor
November 6, 2009
Politico

Conspiracy Buffs Will Have Fun with "V"

Am I the only one wondering if the new series "V" contains an undercurrent of anti-Obama-ism? I do recall reading in the television review that the original series had an anti-Nazi thread running throughout, so there was some speculation as to whether this remake would reflect today's politics. Perry and I laughed out loud at one point when it was almost too obvious. It was the scene where Chad Decker, the handsome news anchor, was interviewing "Anna," the leader of the Visitors. Anna had just told Chad that one of the Visitors' goals was to open healing centers in every major city. "We want to provide complete medical services to all," Anna said, smiling. "You're talking about universal health care?" Chad asked, mouth agape. "I believe that's what you call it, yes," Anna replied with that same beatific smile and a (not ironic?) blink.

Out of curiosity I watched the show again (yay DVR) so I could pay closer attention, and I do think the conspiracy-theorists will have a ball with this program. There were some not-so-subtle comparisons between the "V's" and the new administration. Here's what I picked up, second viewing (OK, yeah, so I took notes...):

Father Jack the Cautious Priest to his superior: "It bothers me that they showed up right when we need them the most. The World's in bad shape...gratitude can morph into worship, or worse, devotion."

Tyler the Rebellious Teen to his concerned (FBI agent) mom Erica who warns him to stay away from the V's dangerous propaganda: "The V's call it spreading hope!"

Father Jack to his congregation: "We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon...but before we get on, let's at least be sure it's sturdy. No one is saying don't trust the Visitors....but don't they need to earn our trust?"

Anna to Chad, right before their televised interview: "Just be sure not to ask questions that will protray us negatively...we can't be seen in a negative light...this interview will elevate your career, Mr. Decker. Don't you want to elevate your career?"

Anna's opening remarks to Chad once the interview begins: "Feel free to ask anything and everything. I'm here to discuss all topics without reserve" (smile, blink).

Anna, responding to Chad's question about describing where the Visitors come from: "We don't divide ourselves into countries. We're one united people."

Anna, responding to Chad's question about what Anna would say to those who are protesting the Visitors: "Embracing change is never easy, but the reward for doing so can be far greater than you can imagine."

Anna's right hand man (press secretary?), to Chad after the interview, reacting to Chad's anger at being manipulated by Anna: "Compromising one's principles for the greater good is not a shameful act. It is a noble one. Your people are easily threatened. What you did tonight went a long way towards reassuring them. What's the harm?"

Erica to Father Jack, after discovering the truth about the Visitors and deciding they need to organize an underground resistance: "They have a big head start. They're arming themselves with the most powerful weapon out there: devotion."

Final scene of Erica's son Tyler joining the Peace Ambassadors. "To the dawn of a new day."


PS just realized I'm not the only one who is noticing...the SciFi Wire is abuzz.

If it sounds too good to be true....

Once again, there's this mad rush to put to a vote another 2,000 + page bill that no one has time to read. Why? What's the hurry? It's becoming increasingly apparent that the House Democrats are desperate to chalk up  a few more"W's" before We the People come to our senses next year and show some of those creepy Dems the door. Chief among the creeps is Madame Speaker (what is it about her that I find so repellent? Maybe it's how she manages to smile while lying?) who has the gall to look into the camera and repeat Barack Obama's unconscionably dishonest claim that he would only sign a health care bill that does not add "one dime" to the deficit while at the same time assuring us that "no one will have to give up their health care plan if they don't want to." The lies and distortions from the Pelosi-Democrats just keep on coming--one analyst named Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute writes that this legislation represents "the biggest fiscal obfuscation in the history of American politics," pointing out that "the current leadership has rigged the legislation so that 60 percent of its total cost will not be made public by the CBO in advance of the House vote."

No matter, Pelosi's going to get this bill passed, truth be damned, and the American people be damned. As usual, my prayer is that saner heads prevail--Democrat, Republican, Independent, Conservative, Libertarian--and that these elected officials will not be cowed or intimidated or browbeaten by these corrupt and shameless politicians.

I read an article the other day in NRO by Mona Charen that I was sorely tempted to send to my sister, who no doubt welcomes the "safety net" the Pelosi-Obama plan represents regardless of the particulars. But I decided to leave her alone. Charen has all kinds of other reasons for being suspicious of the Pelosi-bill, but in this article, her reasons were personal. Like my sister, Charen has a teenage son who's a Type I diabetic, and apparently there's an item in the House bill that would tax medical-device manufacturers 40-billion dollars over the next ten years. The impact on companies who are beginning to make strides in the manufacture of insulin pumps and glucose monitors will be pretty severe, Charen writes, because these are small companies whose budget would be slashed if they had to pay such a heavy tax. "If this tax is enacted," Charen writes, "medical-device manufacturers will cut back drastically on R&D, and may have to lay off employees. In addition, they will charge higher prices for their products to compensate for the money confiscated by Washington. Since health-insurance plans frequently cover half or more of the cost of these already-expensive products, health-insurance rates would have to rise as well. This is just one more example of the ways health-care costs would be driven up, not down, by the Democrats’ reforms."

Here's Charen's article ("This Time it's Personal)
Here's Michael F. Cannon's article ("The $1.5 Trillion Fraud")
The Editors at NRO are also pretty disgusted. Here's their assessment ("Three Strikes Against Obama")

What Makes a Leader?

David Brooks of the New York Times wrote an interesting analysis of Barack Obama and how he's handling the situation in Afghanistan from the standpoint of whether Obama has what it takes to be a wartime president. Brooks says that he interviewed military experts, retired officers, analysts, and people who have lived in Afghanistan. He says these people have reservations about Obama, not because they think he doesn't have the intellectual ability to process information or make decisions but whether he has the tenacity to stick by his decision. Here's a brief excerpt:

Their first concerns are about Obama the man. They know he is intellectually sophisticated. They know he is capable of processing complicated arguments and weighing nuanced evidence. But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.

 Funny how Brooks mentions Lincoln and Churchill but doesn't mention George W. Bush. Maybe it's too early to conclude that Bush was among the great wartime presidents, the jury pool being tainted by proximity. Besides, whatever good came of Bush's Iraq interventions (and many say much good came of that war), it's a fragile tree that could very easily be crushed.

For all of Bush's faults, I believe he still deserves credit for being single-minded, decisive, and focused. After 9/11, one thing and one thing only consumed him: the war on terror. This war must be won, regardless of political fall-out. And there was fall-out aplenty. He left office at about a 22% approval rating. There's something admirable about this willingness to be hated for one's convictions. I wonder if history will be kinder to Bush than his contemporaries.

Obama doesn't have the stomach, I think, to lead America in these dangerous days. He's too much an image-meister, seems to sniff the wind, put toe to wave and then scurry away, rather than plunge in. His admirers praise him for this cautious approach. His detractors view it as cowardice and political cunning.

Here's Brooks' article
The Tenacity Question 
New York Times
October 30, 2009

Still Time?

 James C. Capretta, analyzing the recently-passed health-care "reform" House bill, describes it as "madness." (I agree.) His conclusion: "Fortunately, there remains one very powerful opponent to what House and Senate Democrats are considering — the public. Most Americans want no part of this massive liberal overreach. And there’s still time to put a halt to the madness. But the window is closing."

Read entire article here.

The Insanity of the House Bill - James C. Capretta - Critical Condition on National Review Online

Here's a little blurb from Gary Bauer's End of Day report:

Yesterday, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) offered an amendment that would require every member of Congress to participate in the government-run public option if ObamaCare becomes law . . . Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered a similar amendment during committee hearings in the Senate. His amendment narrowly passed. But in an extreme act of hypocrisy, the majority of committee Democrats voted against it.

Paranoid President?

There have been rumblings among conservatives that Barack Obama is channeling Richard Nixon. The latest comes from Charles Krauthammer, commenting on NRO about the White House's attack on Fox News, saying it's not "real news" but commentary (and MSNBC isn't? who can forget the tingle up Chris Matthews' leg?). The Obama administration has shown its colors. He will "rule by fist," i.e., intimidation. I was glad to read in Krauthammer's piece that other news organizations refused to participate in an interview with Treasury Department "pay czar" Ken Feinberg unless Fox reporters--who had been excluded by the White House--were permitted to attend. The White House apparently backed down, as well they should.

I keep wondering when, oh when, people who admire and extol Obama, people (young people, twenty-somethings in particular), will realize that they are paying allegiance to a narcissistic, self-serving, imperious man who is both ruthless and cynical, and who plays political hardball for keeps. And now we can add paranoid and Nixonian to the mix. To the "Mandy's" of this world, I ask: Is this the savior you admire so much? Take off the rose-colored glasses, my dear.

Here's Krauthammer's article.
Fox Wars, by Charles Krauthammer

It's a New Dawn in America!

Stuff you won't read in the Los Angeles Times (or anywhere else):

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn (yes, she whose favorite political philosopher is Mao Tse Tung), on how the Obama campaign used video messages to control the media during the election in order to avoid talking to the press:

“It was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. Just put that out there and make them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. …So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it and it did not always make us popular with the press. But we, increasingly by the general election, very rarely did we communicate to the press anything that we didn't absolutely control.”
Senior Advisor to Barack Obama David Axelrod telling George Stephanopoulos on ABC that the White House doesn’t consider Fox News to be a real news organization and that ABC and others “ought not to treat them” as if they are a news organization.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel saying on CNN that Fox is not a news organization [because it] has a perspective. …And more importantly is to not have the CNN’s and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox…” 

(Source: Gary Bauer, End of Day report). 

It's a new dawn, it's a new day, callooh callay....

1.42 Trillion Ho Hum

I looked high and low in this morning's Los Angeles Times for a write up. Not only did the story not make the front page, there wasn't even an article inside the paper. I peeked online at some of the major newspapers around the country to see if they mentioned it. Even the notoriously Obama-friendly New York Times headlined with this front page announcement: "1.42 Trillion Deficit Complicates Stimulus Plans." What's the deal?

Nobel Prize for Irony?

This line from an NRO editorial pretty much sums things up: Whose approval would President Obama rather have: that of the Nobel Committee or that of the Rotary Club in Butte? The irony here is that it will probably be under Obama's watch that a nuclear-empowered Iran holds the world hostage.

Yuval Levin makes some interesting observations in his blog entry. What's most disturbing is that it's becoming apparent that Obama seems to actually believe his own rhetoric. He pretends it's "not about me" (his favorite self-deprecation), but people are starting to notice that most of his speeches contain more personal pronouns (I, me) than any of his predecessors' speeches (the "endless stream of first person pronouns" mentioned in Levin's blog was a reference to an article by George Will).

Obama's entire approach to world affairs is reminiscent of peace for our time Nevile Chamberlain. Watching Obama in action is fascinating, in a morbid sort of way. A train wreck in slow-mo. But we are all on the train.

Buy Health Insurance...Or Else?

Interesting comments from Gary Bauer's End of Day report....I can't imagine the uproar if the "mandate" part of the Baucus bill gets passed...great opportunity for some civil disobedience....can you imagine a bunch of us sitting in jail because we wouldn't buy healthcare? One is tempted by the idea...

Here are a few excerpts:

Senator Max Baucus' latest “bi-partisan” healthcare bill has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike. The liberals in Congress are upset because it does not provide for a public option, while conservatives are upset that it still amounts to a government takeover of healthcare and forces individuals to buy healthcare coverage whether they like it or not. A large percentage of younger workers in our country are healthy and would prefer not to pay for healthcare coverage. Also, many wealthy Americans, who can afford to pay their own bills, don’t want to be forced to buy a policy they don’t need.

But what, under the Baucus plan, would happen to people who refused to buy health insurance? The bill states that a $1,900 “excise tax” would be assessed. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) asked what would happen to someone who refused to pay the tax. He was told by Tom Barthold, Chief of Staff for the Senate’s Joint Committee on Taxation, that the person could be charged with a misdemeanor, face up to one year in jail and a fine of up $25,000.

During the 1994 healthcare debate, the mandate issue was at the forefront. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office called the individual mandate “an unprecedented form of federal action.” In the history of the United States, the federal government has never legally forced people to purchase any service or good. If this bill is passed, history will be made.

More “Buyer’s Remorse” On Obama More and more, voters who supported Obama last November are having second thoughts now. Richard Cohen, the very liberal Washington Post columnist, wrote this morning that Obama was “appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is.” He added, “The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only.” 

 

Here's the rest of Cohen's article Time to Act Like a President. Pretty harsh, coming from an Obama-man...

On Obama's Speech to the United Nations: A Collection of Conservative and Liberal Reactions

Listening in on both conservative and liberal reaction to the president's speech (NRO editors called it his "confession"). 

Here's a smattering of commentary from the "right"...

Victor Davis Hanson (National Review Online)

The key question is at what point will the American people sense that the Obama feel-good magic comes at the expense of long-term American interests — and that making some unsavory characters like our president now will mean only trouble ahead for the country itself and its friends abroad.

Charles Krauthammer (blog)

This speech hovered somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous. You had a president of the United States actually saying: “No [one] nation can or should try to dominate another.” I will buy the "should try to" as kind of adolescent wishful thinking. But “no [one] nation can dominate another”? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?

Obama's speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone. It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say — as [did] every president who goes before Obama — that we stand for something good and unique in the world.

Anne Bayefsky (senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices) reporting from the U.N.:

President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about his commitment to standing with the oppressed. While he spoke inside the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside refuting his words...President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the terrible fate of Iranian dissidents. Every Iranian demonstrator in New York today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama’s policy on Iran to be an outrageous abandonment of democratic values....Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic....The president’s deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy was well-received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America’s moral stature and leadership capacity in the world today. ...This speech ought to send shockwaves through the United States and our European allies. We have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn’t appeal to an audience rife with demagogues.

Rich Lowry (excerpts from his column in the New York Post)

President Obama yesterday did his best impression of a high-school sophomore participating in his first Model UN meeting… Obama hopes that all our self-effacing niceness will catalyze the world into ending its "bickering about outdated grievances." No wonder he twice had to deny that he was being naive.

And from the "left..."

The New York Times editorial board, taking the requisite swipe at George W. Bush, writes that Obama “took another step toward repairing America’s battered image,” while the Los Angeles Times focused mostly on the power of Obama’s personality. Commending Obama for his ability to “palpably reduce global tensions,” the L.A. Times wrote that “some delegates were so awed by the American president that they couldn't resist snapping pictures during his Wednesday speech.”

 Michael Crowley, writing in his column in The New Republic, is a bit more circumspect, calling the speech “elegant if not terribly profound” and “idealistic,” and concluding that “it is the force of Obama's identity and personal experience which offers some hope that his words might have more resonance.” Yet his final statement (“In the months to come, we’ll find out”) suggests he seems willing to reserve judgment.

Comparing these contrasting views, one can’t help but feel commentary today is all about perceptions, expectations, and preferences and not necessarily about actual facts. These divergent views aren’t coming from the fringes. These are thoughtful, informed, intelligent comments about the exact same event but with widely different assessments and conclusions. Is it even possible to get at actual truth anymore, or will it always be that opinions and ideas are shaped by whose “side” we’re on?

How to Change the Subject in Two Syllables

Charles Krauthammer commenting in his blog on the latest attempt by Democrats to change the subject by calling Joe Wilson "racist":

The minute you call somebody a racist, the debate is over. You don't continue….Accusations of racism are the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel. As for Maureen Dowd, imagining a word [“boy”] that wasn't said: Well, in my previous profession, I saw a lot of people who heard words that weren't said. They were called patients. Many of them were actually helped with medication.

 Funny.

Not Sure How He Gets Away With It

The premise for B.O.'s Big Speech to Congress on health care reform had to do with what he referred to as lies and distortions emanating from those who opposed health care reform. The "time for bickering is over," he declared. He then proceeded to lay out a plan for reform that apparently contained its own share of half-truths or distortions, which two days later are now being scrutinized. But rather than focus on this, the big news of the speech was not so much what the president said but what Republican representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina did, which was to interrupt the speech and call Obama out as a liar. Rude and inappropriate behavior to be sure, not befitting the solemnity of the moment. Wilson apparently apologized later, as he should have. But too much is being made of the outburst. It's not as though the Democrats have "clean hands" in this regard. (Did they never "boo" President Bush during his addresses to Congress? If so, did they apologize later?).

What's missing in all the chiding of Wilson is the fact that his reaction was gut-level and instinctive. Mona Charen, writing in NRO today, says that "similar exclamations were heard" at her house. And Kevin Williamson, also writing in NRO, says that Joe Wilson "could use a visit from Miss Manners," but he was telling the truth about Obama. The L.A. Times published a picture of three or four Republicans wafting their own versions of health care reform in response to Obama's claim that the "other side" has not offered any good ideas. And Joe Wilson's slur was a reaction to Obama's claim that his reform plan would not pay for illegal immigrants. Yet Republicans' attempts to ensure this by requiring proof of residency were not included in the House version of the bill. Wilson understood the game that was being played up there. Words are cheap. This President can "say" anything he wants. Truth and accuracy don't seem to matter. So the irony here is that Joe Wilson is being villified for calling Obama a liar, but President Obama, who probably is "dissembling" (let's not call him a liar), is praised. It's amazing to me. How does he do it?

Here's Kevin Williamson Joe Wilson is Rude but Right  and Mona Charen Obama's Trouble With Numbers