Today, Joe Klein runs a blog entry entitled "Why Drudge is a Disgrace." Here is what he says:
I know this is old news, but this guy is shameless. The headline, with a photo of a three-quarters crazed Hillary, is HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK but the linked story says this:
At this point, we don’t have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We’re providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
How stupid does he think we are? Answer: Extremely dumbolic.
Now, it is clear that the article does not say that Hillary’s plan includes these proof of insurance checks yet, and therefore the headline is a bit misleading. But it is equally clear that Hillary actually favors these kind of proof of insurance checks, and that she would be willing to try to make this part of her plan if she could work it out with Congress. So it would have been better if Drudge’s head simply said: "Hillary Supports Requiring Proof of Health Insurance to Work." That would have been more accurate, and it would have shown how, to borrow Mr. Klein’s erudite word, dumbolic Hillary’s views really are on this issue.
Will someone explain why a proof of insurance requirement, as part of an overall scheme, is in principle a bad idea?
A. people try to get jobs to get insurance.
B. The federal government has no business checking up on anyone's health insurance situation, particularly when they go on a job interview.
C. More government = less freedom.
Real American - That's it? Surely there must be stronger arguments. At this rate, the Democrats will win the day on this issue.
Does the federal government have no business requiring that the employer check anything about a job applicant? If one thing, why not another (this)?
Does your "more government = less freedom" include guaranteed student loans? No Child Left Behind? Federal Reserve Notes?
I detect some fatigue on the right, and lots of formulaic thinking. Note the relatively low rate of participation on the blog. What's happening? Fatigue and formulas have been associated with the left, until now.
Steve, the reasons for NLT fatigue might be an interesting topic...I think it has something to do with an overall fatigue many on the right (and I would guess, on the left, too)feel with hearing the same damn political arguments being used to debate foreign policy. Peronally, I'm a bit bored or and tired of politics right now, and yes discouraged that the repetive and uncivil arguments of the Dems seem to be carrying the day, obviously w/ a good deal of help from Bush's and the Republican's lackluster leadership. Also, I think more generally, that blogging/commenting of the very committed kind involves a lot of time, and isn't always part of a healthy life-style. Six years after "blogging's" coming on the scene, a lot of us have a better sense of that, and certainly less of that triumphal Hugh Hewitt/Andrew Sullivan/Glenn Reynolds sense that blogging is going to revolutionize the media, and is where it's at.
As for health-policy, I'd also say that a lot of us have been so focused on foreign policy debates, thate were rusty on domestic issues--I'd say that applies across the political spectrum. I know I need to read more on health care.
And to fit your caricature, somewhat, I'll leave you with a slogan, although it comes from the punk band Husker Du: Safety is a big disguise...while they divide and conquer!
Steve, I concur with Carl's analysis/self-report; plus I'm back in the classroom (with a fairly heavy load); plus I've never found this format to be a comfortable one for me, given my pedantic and dialectical nature. I temperamentally don't like insults, rants, mere assertions, and the like, which are intrinsic to partisan discourse. (Hence my dislike for Ann C and Bill O'R, as well as movon.org.) I have a point of view, I'm don't belong to a party.
Paul - I understand that, and share it, and yet I think we stand at an especially important moment. Civil discourse must not be driven out.
Well, Drudge writes about what he likes most (and is): homosexuals and right wingers.