It is interesting to watch the health care debate go on around us. Like Charles Krauthammer, I think Obama lost the debate already, and, as I argued in "ObamaCare on the Ropes?", I think we have at least until 2011 before a serious proposal is fielded, but still the debate is interesting to watch.

For example, I saw an advertisement today, put forward by the AARP, arguing that you "shouldn't late scare tactics interfere with fixing this broken system." Which is amusing as the buzz words "broken system" are themselves scare tactics. More interesting is that AARP's constituency is the one group that does pretty well under our present semi-interventionist system. The elderly receive more care in the US and at lower cost than they do under any socialized system in the world. And, at least given the proposals on the table, the "fixes" are far more likely to hurt them than help. But, then again, being an arm of the Democrat party, that really doesn't matter to AARP

A phrase in the last paragraph, "at least given the proposals on the table", reminded me of the other dishonesty in this whole debate, the "multiple proposals" dodge. The Democrats, or at least the Obama wing of the party, continue to push for instant action, and insist there must be reform, but they keep multiple proposals on the table. Why? So whenever someone criticizes "the plan" they can laugh and say there isn't "one plan". What this ignores is that eventually there will be one plan, and, more importantly, there is a good deal of common ground between the existing plans, so in many cases, it is safe to speak of "the plan".

In addition, Obama himself clearly has some things he wants to see in the plan approved, and likely most will make it into the plan adopted, if only to avoid veto. So, while there is no single plan,. we can safely speculate about what will be offered up, based on both common ground among existing proposals and the desires expressed by the president. But, whenever we do, the left retreats into their scoffing, smirking "there's no single plan" dismissal of those complaints, and the lap dog media goes along.

And that brings me to my final complaint. I have to ask, does anyone else find it troubling that something as significant as health care reform is being pushed by such devious methods? The shouts of "emergency" in an effort to push through reform as rapidly as possible, before anyone can look at the proposals. Asking citizens to report those offering criticisms. Playing "fact check" games, rather than offering up substantive arguments. Responding to disruptive crowds by forming your own disruptive union mobs, rather than holding them up to ridicule. The criticism of anyone objecting as "scaremongers". The obscuring of the president's own past statements about single payer, cost-effectiveness, reduction of care, and other important topics. And the juggling of multiple plans to prevent effective criticism of any single plan. Is this the way a major party enacts significant legislation they claim the majority of America supports?

POSTSCRIPT

The Krauthammer article linked above is largely on other topics relating to Obamacare, but is an interesting read. And since I used the link my wife sent me rather than the link to the same article on Townhall, let me put the TH link here. After all, they do host this blog, so I should probably send some traffic their way.

POSTSCRIPT II

Just for your convenience, you can report my "fishy comments" to the White House using this link: MINITRUE. (And, yes, I usually think Orwell quotes are hyperbole, and I still do, but I had to come up with something to support the link, and the Newspeak word for Ministry of Truth was the best I could come up with on short notice.)

POSTSCRIPT III

This actually isn't that unusual for the current administration. Health care is not the only subject on which they have sued similar tactics. Recall dismissing all tax protest with juvenile "tea bagger jokes"? Or the "emergency" need to pass every Obama proposal without debate or even time enough to read the bill? I continue to wonder why, if his proposals have such broad support, and are such common sense, generally accepted approaches, he can't allow even congress the time to read them, much less floor substantive debate on them? (I know the answer, but I wonder if asking this might get some Obamaniacs to find it on their own.)

POSTSCRIPT IV

The WSJ's Best of the Web raised some similar questions, most recently concerning the "death panels" (mentioned here, here and here), the multiple plans, and the rush to pass the bill. They also made the interesting observation that, recently, every argument from the left has been against those opposing ObamaCare, rather than offering substantive support for ObamaCare. So I am hardly alone in asking these questions. What is surprising is how deep in the tank much of the MSM remains, even as their readers clamor for answers, they blithely continue to serve up Obama press releases as journalism. Does anyone think that the MSM will survive this administration with even an ounce of credibility?