In an interview with the Economist magazine recently, former House Majority Leader and current FreedomWorks Capo Dick Armey said that something like a Public Option would be great. But the issue comes down to choice.
“If you in fact freely choose to enroll in Medicare that’s a wonderful gift,” said Armey, “it’s a charity, it’s something I applaud. But when they force you in, that’s tyranny.”
Needless to say, Armey, albeit a native English speaker, has not apparently focused in on the ‘option’ part of ‘public option’ since obviously, in the reality-based world, this is the whole point. It’s an option if you either cannot get or do not want insurance from a private company.
Seems like a good point. How come it’s not been made? Maybe this is why — there is the real world, where most people have been very misinformed, and don’t seem to know the basic facts about the issue (including Dick Armey). And then there is the Democrat/Donkasaurus Party world, where everybody does, so nothing has to be shown, sold, illustrated, or communicated.
In an open letter to the President, Journalist Bill Moyers, who has been covering the health care issue, writes:
Here’s a suggestion, Mr. President: ask Josh Marshall to draft your speech. Josh is the founder of the website talkingpointsmemo.com. He’s a journalist and historian, not a politician. He doesn’t split things down the middle and call it a victory for the masses. He’s offered the simplest and most accurate description yet of a public insurance plan — one that essentially asks people: would you like the option — the voluntary option — of buying into Medicare before you’re 65? Check it out, Mr. President.
Marshall had also asked, in his Post,
Why this isn’t being used as a way to explain this program is simply beyond me.
For the same reason that almost nothing has been adequately explained about this issue. Because the Democratic Party seems to implicitly act on the wildly off base presumption that everybody knows what the Democratic Party thinks they should know; and that misleading information is just that, rather than the information that is helping to shape and misinform our debate. Why? We do have an idea, but the reasons go well beyond this short Post. But they certainly can be corrected. And need to be. Not for this issue, necessarily, but for the sake of the broader debate in America today, and as we progress forward.
[...] all the lessons learned, Democrats still have not seemingly learned one simple, overriding [...]
[...] that last clause (because they have decided that unlike their opponents, they can’t sell or explain anything other than to their “base,” which keeps telling them how brilliant their explanations [...]