I just want to make one really quick follow-up point to my last post. Anyone remember when Wall Street started melting down? Anyone remember how the entire Washington Establishment said we had to immediately hand about $12 trillion over to the financial industry no questions asked - and how that same Washington Establishment attacked progressives for trying to slow things down just a wee bit?
Today, many of those Washington Establishment voices are precisely the same people who now insist we cannot "rush" a $1 trillion health care reform package through Congress. After pushing a $12 trillion no-strings-attached handout to Wall Street, they actually insist that they don't want to "rush" health care because of it's price tag.
And so, I'm wondering - has anyone bothered to ask those same bailout backers why they said we had to rush $12 trillion out to Wall Street, but we shouldn't "rush" health care reform for the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, and the 22,000 who die every year because of that reality?
I mean, even if you subscribe to the empirically absurd notion that debating health care for 64 years is a "rush," this is a pretty simple line of questioning: How was handing $12 trillion to Wall Street over the course of 10 days of legislative debate the right kind of thing to rush, but spending $1 trillion on universal health care after a 64-year debate the wrong kind of thing to "rush?"
No comments:
Post a Comment