Ever since Ronnie Reagan reigned ridiculous, people have bought into the notion that we can have everything we want without paying for it. Who wouldn't, especially if it were true? Other than the fact that the voodoo has always proved to be doodoo, it's pretty attractive. And that, as far as I can tell, is the reason people think they dislike Obamneycare: Giving people access to health care isn't supposed to cost anything. George Bush never made us pay for anything, so where does the black guy get off trying to? (Well, that, and the fact that today's Rs couldn't give less of a shit about people who can't afford it; nor do they care to recognize that when people who can't afford it get sick, 1) they're sicker -- and more expensive -- than they needed to be and 2) those costs are, in fact, borne by those very people who think they don't give that particular shit.)
Because, really, I can't understand (other than the Ds' and Obama's poor messaging against the ill wind) why people are so outraged about the ACA. The problem, evidently, is that Ronnie and his sickly shadow W never tried to pay for stuff. (Okay, Ronnie eventually sort of did, but Rs like to pretend otherwise.) Medicare drug bill? Free!! Just like the wars.
So when Obama and the Ds borrowed the ideas for the ACA from The Heritage Foundation and The Rominee, they included paying for it. And there's the rub. Unwilling to acknowledge that paying for stuff used to be a conservative value, Rs decided to play the SOCIALISM card, even though the ACA is to socialism as leaving private insurers in the middle is to not-socialism. (Anyone notice how drug company and health insurance stocks did after the Roberts ruling?)
Clearly, when allowed to hear about it beyond the fog of Foxification, people like the idea of letting their kids being covered, being able to get insurance despite preexisting conditions, not losing coverage when they get sick, or when they change jobs. Or when the bills mount up. No, it's just that "do unto others" stuff they're pissed about. Helping people who can't afford it.
Here's an interesting read: Chinese can't figure out the politics of Americans not wanting health care. Take away the RWS™ lies, and I can't either.
Yep, ever since Ronald Reagan said you lower taxes and everything we need will happen for free, sprouting like fairy mushrooms painted in polkadots, people have believed; and that ignorance has become self-perpetuating.
Which is how teabaggRs have been so successful. Recognizing that Democrats succeeding in health care reform could lose them their power for a long time, they set about to convince the public that the ACA is exactly what it's not: a government takeover; death panels; socialism; killing grandma. And now, of course, since one-ninth of the supremes referred to it as a tax -- quelle horreur -- it's like, you know, that paying-for-it thing. Even if it saves money in the long run -- the long run being the thing Rs don't want to talk about -- it's the work of Satan.
There was a strange letter to the editor locally the other day. Among other things, it said this:
I did not vote for Obama. I disagreed with his reasoning regarding capitalism and with his critical, although open assessment of our Constitution ...
I am suspect of his foreign policy. ...
Obama is a globalist. His idealism concerns itself more with the welfare of a global community than with the well-being of a nation.
That being said, as president of the United States he is an awesome figurehead. His stature emanates self-assurance to the world. On this, I am proud that he is my president. In much of the world he is very popular and well-liked.
As I read it, I wondered what "reasoning" regarding capitalism the writer had in mind. Same with his "assessment" of the Constitution. Since he didn't tell us, I wondered what "foreign policy" he objects to. On what basis he sees Obama as a globalist. Absent specifics, I could only assume the man had ingested the usual Foxorovian talking points. I can't think of much Obama actually has done to undermine capitalism (maybe the writer doesn't like capitalism), and a lot that he's done to support it. Same with foreign policy. It's such a meaningless term when used with no reference to anything. But then the writer surprised me, ending with this:
In my opinion, it might be more beneficial to re-elect Obama.... kick out some of the blatantly liberal politicians, yet retain a man who reflects confidently our continued devotion for peace.
Why include this in a seemingly unrelated blog post? Well, because it seems to reflect the incomprehensible incomprehension of those who think they dislike Obama because of the steady stream of misinformation and disinformation they're getting. Like the Reagan/Bush economic falsities, they soak up the rest of it as well, accepting a vision of Obama that bears no relation to reality; the acceptance of which they're hard-pressed to explain.
But that letter might be the first time I saw a little -- if unacknowledged and oblique -- recognition of the disconnect. Instead of the usual Foxified certainty, the man just seems confused.
