The Democratic National Committee says in a TV ad that "Republicans voted to abolish Medicare." Not true.
The ad refers to a proposal endorsed by most House Republicans as part of the alternative budget they presented earlier this year. In fact, the GOP plan actually called for:
* Preserving the current Medicare program for anyone now receiving it, or within 10 years of qualifying for it.
* For those now under age 55, converting Medicare to a system of private, government-approved health insurance plans purchased mostly with government payments.
The proposal is similar to one endorsed a decade ago by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. It is controversial, to be sure: Most Democrats don’t like it, and not all Republicans do either. It’s a plan to change Medicare significantly but not to "abolish" it.
If you read the report, the Republican policy statement was designed to throw more taxpayers' money to private insurers by allowing those under 55 to purchase private insurance with government subsidies. Sounds suspiciously like privatizing Social Security, but since I won't stick my neck out by predicting things that I can't prove (unlike same-sex marriage opponents), I'll just let it rest at that: more of our money to major corporations. That's the Republican answer to everything.
Sullivan, of course, doesn't bother with the substance of the report. He merely cites Megan McArdle and Kevin Drum on -- not the substance, mind you, but how awful the Democrats are. This line is priceless: "It's the Dems at their own scare-mongering worst (it's partly how Clinton won re-election)." (Got to have the Clinton slam in there, you know.) McArdle's comment:
This is, of course, not, well, er, true. But you have to admire the brazenness of the thing. And I'd really like to know whether this sort of thing works, or whether it comes across as so ludicrous that people start wondering about the Democrats' sanity.
I wonder what McArdle had to say about "death panels"? Or the "3 a.m." ad?
Kevin Drum actually makes some intelligent comments that obviously owe something to having a memory that stretches farther back than fifteen minutes:
My guess: yes, it works, and no, no one will be wondering about Dems' sanity. I mean, when you're competing with "Obama is a socialistfascistcommunistthug," you've got a pretty high bar to cross before you look extreme. Instead, what I'm curious about is why the DNC bothered with this. Why not just tell the truth: Republicans essentially voted in favor of turning Medicare over to private industry. With only a few words of explanation, this could easily be more effective than the ad that actually ran. Like so:
Republicans voted to turn Medicare over to private insurance companies! You heard right: they want to hand Medicare over to the same companies that [insert two or three insurance company outrages here, maybe a Wall Street reference, something about profits over people, etc.]. Democrats will never do that. Blah blah blah.
Would that really be any less scary than the ad that actually ran? Or is the DNC afraid that the urban legends are true, and everyone thinks Medicare is a private plan already?
At least McArdle noted Drum's response in an update. But she still doesn't get anywhere near the substance of the argument.
My purpose is not just to pillory Sullivan and McArdle (although both deserve it), but to point out that they do us no service by this sort of "commentary." Drum at least comes up with some rational observations, along with the underlying idea that this is the level of public discourse at this point -- thanks to the Republicans and their base. And from a broader perspective, why bother harping on how awful the Democrats are? We already know that. They are, after all, no more than the mirror image of the Republicans (or trying to be -- the ad in question shows some progress in that area, at least). Why not actually focus on the real issue?
I guess being one of the kewl kids is enough work.
No comments:
Post a Comment