Nancy Pelosi = Asshat

Strangely enough, I try not to demonize and/or ridicule people for their political beliefs.  When I hand out asshats, I’m doing so for statements and actions that define a universal Platonic ideal of stupidity.  So Pelosi is here not because of her political views, which I find the philosophical equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard, but for an incredible double-header of dumb that is not only idiotic on it’s face, but which I have trouble picturing as helping any political cause other than Republicans looking for sound bites for 2010 campaign ads.

First off, she manages to take credit for Godwinizing the Health Care debate, snatching it firmly from the fringe of the opposition who’d been raising Hitler analogies since before the election.  Apparently, she missed the fact that wingnuts raising wingnut arguments <> news, speaker of house implying her opposition are Nazis = News.  Enough news that her advocates have to defend her comments rather than her health care plan.  Smooth.

Then, we find out that not only are the people protesting the Health Care legistaltion Nazis, but in USA Today, they are Un-American.  This is not really subject to interpretation, as her op-ed is entitled, “‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate.” And pretty much states flat out that the kind of protest that’s emerging in the face of this legislation is the kind of vile anti-Americanism that Liberals were always paranoid of being accused of during the reign of George W. Hitler. (See what I did there?)

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Oh, I’m afraid of differing views. Uh, no. And the primary fact I’m afraid of is the 1.6 Trillion dollars of mob-inducing fear-mongering that came out of that Right-Wing think tank called the Congressional Budget Office, and the fact that every time the government gets involved in health care it results in steaming piles of fail. Calling me a fearful un-American Nazi doesn’t encourage me to change my mind. Or is that actually the point? Maybe the point is drowning out opposing views by fear mongering? (The un-American Insurance Nazis will get you!)

By the way, about “facts,” despite decrying the “factless” fearfulness of the evil nasty loathsome opposition, there are precious few “facts” in her op-ed. In fact, I only found two paragraphs worth:

Our plan’s cost-lowering measures include a public health insurance option to bring competitive pressure to bear on rapidly consolidating private insurers, research on health outcomes to better inform the decisions of patients and doctors, and electronic medical records to help doctors save money by working together. For seniors, the plan closes the notorious Medicare Part D “doughnut hole” that denies drug coverage to those with between $2,700 and $6,100 per year in prescriptions.

Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We’ll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket.

The problem is, of course, none of these “cost cutting” measures save money. The “public option” itself is a massive new entitlement cost, and the “competitive” cost pressure it might have had is already served by Medicare and Medicaid. It saves the Government zero, saves the industry zero, and any downward pressure on the cost of insurance premiums will be offset by the taxes required to pay for it. Let me also say that the electronic record itself is a massive across the board cost to the entire industry, and is in fact already a federal requirement under HIPPA so has no bearing on the “cost” of this bill. And somehow she manages to claim that increasing prescription drug coverage will save money. Also, while preventative care is a good thing, it isn’t some sort of magic bullet to save money. In fact, in many cases it increases health-care expenditures; put bluntly, you live an extra 10 to 15 years because of good preventative care, that’s an extra 10 to 15 years you drain the resources of the system, and those are the years where you consume the most health care resources. That’s not an argument against improving preventative care, but it is an argument against claiming it saves you money.

But then I’m an un-American fact-fearing Nazi.