Solution by Re-Definition

[velvetpage]

You know that thing about how 45 million Americans have no health insurance? Well, the McCain campaign has come up with a way of making the problem disappear.

I'd like to direct your attention to the following quote:

Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

I don't even know where to begin categorizing the monumental stupidity of that statement. Does this guy really not understand that going to an emergency room for the care offered there - and being billed into bankruptcy for it - is very, very different from getting routine care on a regular basis before the problems get out of hand? Has he never heard the term, "preventative medicine"?

I just don't get it. How can this possibly be anything positive? It's just another way to sidestep a problem and pretend it doesn't exist, when millions of people can attest that, yes, it DOES. I would have more respect for a campaign that said, "You know, this is a problem, but it's something that should be solved on state level." That's passing the buck, true, but it's politically defensible and it at least recognizes that there is a problem. But this? It's assinine and dishonest and uncaring.

Link courtesy of wyldraven.

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Of course it applies to both candidates. But Obama took a nuanced approach to disagreeing with Wright at first, and I admired that. It didn't end up working, because Wright kept spewing forth vitriol, but he made an attempt to deny the words without denying the relationship, and I appreciated the distinction.

I'm still waiting to see if McCain will repudiate this. It's new, so he's got a little while to manage it before the shit starts to stick to him. If and when he repudiates it, I'll retract.

Because Canada's is a parliamentary system, toeing the party line is even more important here. There is no clear distinction between the office of the Prime Minister and the party he leads, so it can be assumed that someone close to the PM who makes this kind of gaffe is speaking for the party - or they're going to find themselves demoted out of Cabinet. If they're not demoted, it's presumed that they've got their party's endorsement. It is a slightly different outlook. Some parties let it be known that their members have free reign and don't speak for the party. Others rule the party and members' opinions with a heavier hand. It looks to me like the American parties slide right down the middle - not policing the sound bites before they go out as our Liberals would, but also not accepting responsibility when something is said but no one is held accountable.