Powerful article, thanks for posting.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] The Trumpocalypse Is Near! Repent, and Repeal
Obamacare!
Boardman writes: "Obamacare threatens to become a deadly serious tar baby for
Republicans: the more they mess with it, the more it's going to entangle them
in sticky wickets."
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, left, joins House Speaker Paul Ryan at a news
conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 4, 2017, following a
closed-door meeting with the GOP caucus. Pence and Ryan promised repeal of
President Obama's health care law now that the GOP is in charge of the White
House and Congress. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
The Trumpocalypse Is Near! Repent, and Repeal Obamacare!
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
09 January 17
No, seriously - repeal Obamacare!
Yes, that is what the ideological one-noters among Republicans want to do, so
let them do it! Of course it's not that simple, as even two-note Republicans
have begun to acknowledge wanly, since flat-out repeal could make enemies for
the party, maybe twenty million of the suddenly uninsured.
That's almost ten times the number of votes Hillary won by. Bring it on.
In reality, Obamacare threatens to become a deadly serious tar baby for
Republicans: the more they mess with it, the more it's going to entangle them
in sticky wickets (and forced metaphors). The sensible thing for others is to
stand back and watch the spectacle. It can't end well for Republicans, because
they have no connection to the supposed purpose of Obamacare:
providing health insurance that makes health care more possible for more
people. Obamacare isn't just an ordinary tar baby, it's a tar baby designed by
Rube Goldberg, managing to provide an unnecessarily complex solution to the
wrong question that is only tangentially related to the right question (How do
we provide health care for everybody?).
For years, Obamacare has been a Democratic tar baby and Democrats,
irrationally, will likely feel compelled to defend it because they built it,
they prolonged it, and besides it's part of Obama's legacy. That argument is
all well and good for sentimentalists and lockstep party loyalists looking for
more cliffs to march off, but the rest of us might want to figure out something
less suicidal, maybe even something more beneficial to all those strangers
sometimes known as "the American people."
If Obama had been more concerned with his legacy in the first year of his
presidency than he was in its last year, he might have made a serious
commitment to universal health care, instead of wasting the country's time and
energy on something like half a loaf for half the folks. That would have been
difficult, visionary, and correct, but it was technically doable with no
Republican votes (the same number Obamacare got). Democrats, and Democrats
alone, denied the country the chance to have Medicare for all. So when
Democrats talk about defending health care and Obamacare as if those were the
same thing, they have no credibility. To regain credibility, Democrats will
have to rediscover something like principle, and the courage to stand for
principle - qualities they've mostly done without since Tip O'Neill played
roll-me-over-in-the-clover with Ronald Reagan, a corrupt game in which the
"ordinary" American got gutted.
The sensible response to Republican attacks on Obamacare is to urge them to go
for it - go ahead, repeal Obamacare in its entirety, but only after replacing
it with Medicare for all. That is a rational position, that is an honest
position, and that is the best medical and economic position. That is even a
strategic political position. Let Republicans tangle tactically with the tar
baby, while the principled opposition takes a stand for something that works
for everyone. Single payer health care isn't an experiment, it's a tested
system that works in other countries around the world. Even if standing for
Medicare for all is a losing position in the short term, it secures the moral
and intellectual high ground for the future.
Democrats lost the election for a host of reasons, one of which was that
Democratic voters stayed home in greater numbers (and percentages) than
Republican voters. Young voters, who turned out for Bernie, stayed home in
greater numbers than in 2012. It's just possible that Democrats stayed home
because their party no longer defends, or even much fights for decent
Democratic values. If this self-eviscerated party can't restore itself, then
it's time for a new party to emerge from the ashes of the old.
Health care is pretty much a universal concern, so why not do it right, or go
down fighting? When the only alternative to doing the most sensible, effective
thing is just a competition between the hypocritically inadequate and the
inadequately hypocritical, why is that considered an alternative at all?
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print
journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He
has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, left, joins House Speaker Paul Ryan at a news
conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 4, 2017, following a
closed-door meeting with the GOP caucus. Pence and Ryan promised repeal of
President Obama's health care law now that the GOP is in charge of the White
House and Congress. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
The Trumpocalypse Is Near! Repent, and Repeal Obamacare!
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
09 January 17
No, seriously - repeal Obamacare!
es, that is what the ideological one-noters among Republicans want to do, so
let them do it! Of course it's not that simple, as even two-note Republicans
have begun to acknowledge wanly, since flat-out repeal could make enemies for
the party, maybe twenty million of the suddenly uninsured.
That's almost ten times the number of votes Hillary won by. Bring it on.
In reality, Obamacare threatens to become a deadly serious tar baby for
Republicans: the more they mess with it, the more it's going to entangle them
in sticky wickets (and forced metaphors). The sensible thing for others is to
stand back and watch the spectacle. It can't end well for Republicans, because
they have no connection to the supposed purpose of Obamacare:
providing health insurance that makes health care more possible for more
people. Obamacare isn't just an ordinary tar baby, it's a tar baby designed by
Rube Goldberg, managing to provide an unnecessarily complex solution to the
wrong question that is only tangentially related to the right question (How do
we provide health care for everybody?).
For years, Obamacare has been a Democratic tar baby and Democrats,
irrationally, will likely feel compelled to defend it because they built it,
they prolonged it, and besides it's part of Obama's legacy. That argument is
all well and good for sentimentalists and lockstep party loyalists looking for
more cliffs to march off, but the rest of us might want to figure out something
less suicidal, maybe even something more beneficial to all those strangers
sometimes known as "the American people."
If Obama had been more concerned with his legacy in the first year of his
presidency than he was in its last year, he might have made a serious
commitment to universal health care, instead of wasting the country's time and
energy on something like half a loaf for half the folks. That would have been
difficult, visionary, and correct, but it was technically doable with no
Republican votes (the same number Obamacare got). Democrats, and Democrats
alone, denied the country the chance to have Medicare for all. So when
Democrats talk about defending health care and Obamacare as if those were the
same thing, they have no credibility. To regain credibility, Democrats will
have to rediscover something like principle, and the courage to stand for
principle - qualities they've mostly done without since Tip O'Neill played
roll-me-over-in-the-clover with Ronald Reagan, a corrupt game in which the
"ordinary" American got gutted.
The sensible response to Republican attacks on Obamacare is to urge them to go
for it - go ahead, repeal Obamacare in its entirety, but only after replacing
it with Medicare for all. That is a rational position, that is an honest
position, and that is the best medical and economic position. That is even a
strategic political position. Let Republicans tangle tactically with the tar
baby, while the principled opposition takes a stand for something that works
for everyone. Single payer health care isn't an experiment, it's a tested
system that works in other countries around the world. Even if standing for
Medicare for all is a losing position in the short term, it secures the moral
and intellectual high ground for the future.
Democrats lost the election for a host of reasons, one of which was that
Democratic voters stayed home in greater numbers (and percentages) than
Republican voters. Young voters, who turned out for Bernie, stayed home in
greater numbers than in 2012. It's just possible that Democrats stayed home
because their party no longer defends, or even much fights for decent
Democratic values. If this self-eviscerated party can't restore itself, then
it's time for a new party to emerge from the ashes of the old.
Health care is pretty much a universal concern, so why not do it right, or go
down fighting? When the only alternative to doing the most sensible, effective
thing is just a competition between the hypocritically inadequate and the
inadequately hypocritical, why is that considered an alternative at all?
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print
journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He
has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
