I had been thinking about commenting on Palin’s Sept. 9 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care) shortly after it was published on the day of Obama’s evening health care address to a joint session of Congress. Now that Palin is publishing a book perhaps a few words are still appropriate.
Who was it that said Palin should stay out of politics? Oh, that was me. (No… more… Palin, puh-LEEZE) I still do not care for her as a representative in our national government. Based on what I think was a good health care op-ed, however, she may have a future as a Conservative writer.
Her piece was so well written and referenced, IMO, that I wonder if she has a ghost writer, as she has had assistance in writing her new book. If so, she should grab onto that ghost and keep it close. Her book assistance (ghost, collaborative, whatever) is coming from Lynn Vincent:
What did I like about the health care op-ed?
1. It referenced facts, for which there is far too little in political rhetoric these days.
a. She cites Congressional Budget Office estimates current at the time of the op-ed: “The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years.”
b. Also “A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers."”
c. And “let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include 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.”
2. It spoke to reason and logic (in my humble opinion):
a. She writes “Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right.”
b. “Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels?
Love it, love it, love it. She slips in that phrase again, like a twisting rhetorical dagger to the ribs, that just drives liberals crazy. Talk about pushing someone’s buttons.
To sum up, I say the piece is well-written, factual, and logical. There is always room for such conservative voices in our increasingly emotional and illogical liberal political landscape.