Deconstructing Sarah Palin’s LAUGHABLE Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece on Health Care
September 10, 2009 16 Comments
“Even Gov. Palin in the essay that, I don’t know, she wrote herself” – the official wryly continued, drawing laughter from reporters – “as she considered all of the complexities of this issue, acknowledged at the front end that there is a significant health care crisis. That alone is important,” Obama Administration Official, September 9, 2009.
ATLANTA— That dingbat from the north, Sarah Palin, is up to it again. That backwoods, Facebook provocateur (as some have called her) has dared to wade yet again into the health care debate, offering an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in which she dares to criticize the proposals of her intellectual superior, Barack Obama. Being the ideological progressives that we are, let’s deconstruct this ill-bred and ill-educated demogague’s opinion piece and expose it for the lying lie that we instinctively know that it is.
In that piece, Mrs. Palin, says “Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones.” Laughable! Look at the $1.8 trillion 2009 government deficit caused by government bailouts and Mr. Obama’s stimulus package. This is a shining example of the government taking on larger problems without creating a new one!
Don’t you agree??
Mrs. Palin goes on to suggest that “common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy.” Lying lie! She need only to look at the economic success of the communist giants of the 20th century and those south of our borders today in Cuba and Venezuela. They are prime examples of the robust strength of centrally planned economic systems. These countries show the amazing capacity of intellectual elites to rightly set prices, predict demand, provide adequate supply and eliminate poverty and suffering, all while giving their people unimagined freedoms and protecting them from immoral rationing. What is Mrs. Palin talking about by criticizing top-down, one-size-fits-all economics?
Mrs. Palin attacks the government for “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies.” She goes on to say that this new program will exacerbate, not solve, our current problems. Ridiculous! She must be confused by the flashy colors in the graph prepared by the nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) below, which projects massive and unending federal deficits under Barack Obama’s spending plans. Ignore the nonpartisan actuaries- they lie too! After all, Nancy Pelosi says we can lower costs and increase the access to and availability of care. That’s what matters.
And Mrs. Palin dares mention “death panels” again in her piece. Lies, absolute lies! When Barack Obama says he is going to squeeze out MediCare costs by establishing a panel of experts working outside of normal political channels to “guide decisions” around care for the elderly and chronically ill, he is talking about something else altogether. Can’t you tell? …death panels. Puh!
Mrs. Palin ends her article by saying she would change healthcare by doing the following: “giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.”
Laughable! That sounds wrong- isn’t it obvious why that plan is just wrong? We’re progressives- we don’t need to hear about these things. Mrs. Palin is a lying, liar. So that plan is just a bunch of lies. We don’t need to consider it.
Mrs. Palin doesn’t have an Ivy League education and hasn’t spent much time in elite, left-leaning intellectual circles. Accordingly, how can she possibly understand the needs and wants of the American middle class?
Instead of scaring the American people into believing her and following her ideas for reform, Mrs. Palin needs to shut up, grab a plate of moose meat, and watch Barack Obama. Barack will lecture us on how we need to put aside scare tactics and follow his plan, otherwise our country will go bankrupt and countless numbers of our people will die needlessly.
Get out of the way, Sarah Palin. You’re not smart enough for this debate!
About Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
Stephen VanNuys
TennesseePaul
The Freedom Thinker
Alexander Hamilton said:
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people … turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government … Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.”
Interesting quote, BMM. Had never read that, though it does sound consistent with my understanding of many of the founding fathers’ views. I kind of agree in respect to pure democracy that it can lend itself to lunacy. I prefer the Republic we have, with its many checks and balances. But not sure I agree with the elitist tones of Hamilton regarding wealthy folks…
What do you think about it? Why did you post it here?
I was just posting that because god forbid that a self-made mother of however many kids spot off about leading our country. Especially if she went to a community college and then transferred to a number of regular colleges.
Yah, that would be too much like the story of most Americans for us to even ever want her to lead. Heck, I say we rewrite history and give Truman a four-year degree from Harvard or Yale – your pick.
I was merely posting the comment to demonstrate that people seem to still be captivated with the same elitism that existed in yesteryears – those “quaint” “horse and buggy times” which FDR said our Framers wrote the Constitution in.
Concur – you have a point.
Ahh Sarah… the perennial burr under the saddle of Mr. Obama.
If she was a steak in Argentina, she would already have been cooked now.
Speaking of which – I really want steak for dinner.
Good post on Sarahcuda on your blog TBC. These guys here at the Missive just can’t ever be the first to break a story! :p
Thanks… I just happen to be a night owl and catch all the midnight news dumps
I am gonna start calling you Scoops McGee, TBC.
Stephen, your new name is the New York Times. TBC broke the story before you (a la the Van Jones situation and MSM).
In all seriousness thanks to all of you guys for blogging – it makes life a little more interesting.
Indeed. I knew when I read this piece and then read that quote from the Obama administration that libs were eating this up. But Palin has a very wide audience… lots of people still love her, even if they think she should stay out of politics for the sake of her family.
The American fascination with “the elite” is a carryover from the European influence that so many of our immigrants brought with them when they left their native lands for better opportunity and expanded freedom.
Ain’t it odd that when they find out what freedom is all about they yearn for the “security” that the variations of European benevolent monarchies and social democracies are so willing to offer in return for obedience and “equality”?
The thing about freedom is that it is inherently insecure. There were slaves who did not want to leave the plantations after abolition because they were so afraid of not being able to make it. Freedom is terrifying because… you can fail, because things may not work out, because there are no guarantees.
Slavery is very secure. Everyone is cared for, all the needs are provided, there is equality (roughly) and no one has to fear; that is they don’t have to fear anyone but the slave master.
it is interesting that the same leftists who hated the security of social systems and protested against them (giving us no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, “free love”, sexual liberation, etc.) because of their restrictions on “freedom” now want the restrictions of state imposed slavery and trade off their freedom for it.
Great points. And I agree with you, TBC. Liberals have a funny inconsistency. They trust individuals to make fine choices for themsleves when it comes to the matters you referenced, but not when it comes to economic matters. When economics come into play, the libs seem to think the government is the only one that can make a “fair” distribution of wealth.
You could in some ways argue conservatives have a similar inconsistency. At one point in our history, believers in lassiex faire captalism were considered liberals while people who wanted government control and assistance in economic matters were the conservatives. Interesting how the words get mixed around…
I guess on this point, libertarians are arguably the most consistent ones: “liberal” in their economics and liberal in their views on the social issues of our era (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). Alas, it is for this final reason that I am not a libertarian.
Freedom… I love that word.
Pingback: Fear of Failure vs Freedom « The Freedom Thinker