Sunday, April 01, 2012

Of the thousands of editorials lambasting the Supreme Court for even considering the possibility of striking down Obamacare...

Here's the one we chose to respond to; it's from San Jose's own Mercury News, which predictably finds that GOP proposals for health-care reform fail to sufficiently take from the rich and give to the poor.

The one-hundred-and-twenty-five word limitation specified in their submission requirements allows for little more than an expanded Tweet, but we gave it a shot:

"Dear Editor:

You conclude that Obama's healthcare reforms are better than GOP ideas, which won’t "reduce the number of uninsured, drive down medical costs or provide better care for middle-class or poor Americans." - where is the evidence that Obama's reforms actually accomplish these goals?

While supporters have been pitching benefits, we haven’t been told why waivers for these reforms were handed out like prize tokens, why costs have nearly doubled since the plan’s inception, or why the bulk of the legislation doesn’t begin until after the next presidential election.

The reforms are either a good idea, or they’re not; the backroom-dealing gives people plenty of reason to be suspicious. It can easily be argued that doing nothing about health care is better than making it worse."