If I have been taught anything about politics during the recent federal debate on health care reform, it is to Be Wary of Vague, Ambiguous Political Ideas. Why do I say this? Well... first, let's look into the three prime directives offered by the Obama Administration when beginning the push for health care reform. First, reduce costs. Second, guarantee choice. Third, ensure affordable care for all Americans. On the surface, all three prime directives sound great but when you digg deeper into the nuts and bolts you soon realize that the vague terms create room for Corporate Democrats to sell out the American people.
For everyone who participated and watched intently as the legislation proceeded, first, through the House and, then, through the Senate, received a first hand look at how the political process works. And it was ugly and dirty.
I don't mean the comments by the other side of the aisle either because quite frankly, they were inconsequential. Sure they were able to get a bunch of wayward and misguided individuals angry and motivated to attend (or be paid to attend) rallies against health care reform. However, when it came time for voting the other side couldn't muster enough votes to stop the legislation.
Instead, the ugliness and dirtiness came from the Corporate Democrats who did everything and anything in their power to water down the bill. In fact, in the Senate, the Corporate Democrats had a former Wellpoint (health insurance company) executive write the bill. Hmmm..wonder which side Liz Fowler represents.
How ever much we hooted and hollered, called and cajoled there was never going to be the type of reform that would benefit us, We the People. Instead, we are soon set to receive health care reform that will benefit the health insurance companies.
Why do you ask? Well it all starts with the language that was used at the beginning. It was vague and ambiguous by design. As David Corn and Kevin Drum from Mother Jones pointed out on Bill Moyers' Friday January 8, 2010 show, the simpler the bill the sharper the teeth for regulation and reform. Now Mr. Corn and Mr. Drum were talking about financial reform but the same adage applies. In other words, keep it simple and I would add; keep it specific.
Lastly and most importantly, when you evaluate the candidates for the next Minnesota governor, be wary of the vague, ambiguous terms they use. The more concrete, the more specific the ideas; the better we know the direction the candidate wants to take Minnesota. In addition, the better we know how hard the candidate will fight for those particular ideas.
|
