Laurie Kellman, call your office, check your e-mail, and tap in to your Twitter.
The Associated Press reporter didn't get the memo that recession is supposedly over, and that at a minimum you shouldn't be writing as if it will be with us for a while. She also erred in citing the weak economy as a bad thing for Democrats. The New York Times told us about a week ago that a bad economy is a good thing for Democrats who want to pass state-controlled health care and other freedom-restricting agenda items, because a bad economy increases personal insecurity. They're such pals of the little guy, you see.
Both busts against the conventional media wisdom are in Kellman's brief item from late this morning (bolds are mine):
Health care issues: Hold off for a better economy?
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Why can't President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats wait until after the recession is over to try to reform health care?
THE POLITICS: The recession is likely to take years to abate, but the 2010 midterm elections aren't far off. Obama and the Democrats who control Congress campaigned last year on a promise to extend health insurance to all and to curb the cost of care. By the next Election Day, the party in control wants a hefty list of accomplishments to point to, topped by having passed the most sweeping social change in a generation. There is no pocketbook issue more compelling than health care reform. It is intensely personal because it affects the health and financial welfare of voters and their families. Democrats are counting on the passage of health care overhaul to fuel optimism and persuade voters to keep them in power. Republicans are working hard to raise doubts about the emerging legislation — how it might add to an already huge federal budget deficit, increase insurance premiums or increase taxes.
Go to the link to see what Kellman believes it all means to next year's congressional elections.
Points to ponder:
- If, as Kellman writes, ObamaCare is "the most sweeping social change in a generation," why is it being sold as a "no big deal, you can keep your doc, keep your plan, keep it all, no big deal" item?
- What was the "sweeping social change" that was enacted a generation ago? Dictionary.com says that a generation is about 30 years. I'm figuring that Kellman must be referring to the election of Ronald Reagan and the simultaneous thumping of Jimmy Carter that occurred 29 year ago, almost to the day.
- Alternatively, perhaps Kellman follows business and the economy on the side. The Community Reinvestment Act become law in the late 1970s, and has, with its subsequent beef-ups, certainly caused a lot of social change -- not for the good -- in the form of high foreclosures and distorted real estate markets.
- Somehow, the idea that Congress will stay largely intact because of voter gratitude over passing a 1900-plus page monstrosity that STILL has death panels, has abortions, and takes away medical choice any time a private plan is tweaked in any way seem a bit far-fetched.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
