![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldAs the Canadian Press's Lee-Ann Goodman reports, conservatives are doing everything that they can to avoid the creation of a national health-care system covering all Americans.
Right Wing Watch hosts the commercial in its entirety.
What the two silly, silly people in the commercial don't understand is thaat abortions solve their problem: not only does he manage to avoid surgery when the fetuses are rendered into magical stem cells, but his wife also gets to enjoy youth-restoring fetus-based cosmetics! How can anyone oppose those noble goals?
More seriously, I am confused about the invocation of choice by opponents of this health plan? So far as I know, unlike Canada's Medicare, the plan would not make doctors employees of government, instead mandating the individual's purchase of insurance with subsidies from employers and the government thrown in. It can understand how some American conservatives might see the Canadian system as intrusive, although as André Picard points out the anti-Medicare case made by Canadian Shona Holmes on American television is misleading, to say the least. But mandating individuals' purchase of insurance?
The rhetoric opposing national medicare in the United States seems to centre around fears that individuals will lose their autonomy, their freedom of choice. How can they be free to choose, I wonder, if they're unable to afford basic therapies and have to go without? I'm quite confused.
Can one of you help me?
The commercial opens with an aging couple sitting at their kitchen table, plaintive piano music playing in the background.
"They won't pay for my surgery, but we're forced to pay for abortions," says the miffed husband in the new spot produced by the pro-life Family Research Council.
It ends with this warning from the narrator: "Our greatest generation denied care. Our future generation denied life. Call your senator. Stop the government takeover of health care."
Right Wing Watch hosts the commercial in its entirety.
As is so often the case in the United States, another political battle has become a war waged over values as health-care reform remains the top order of business this week on Capitol Hill.
Democrats reached a fragile agreement on Wednesday with the party's rebellious rank-and-file fiscal conservatives, clearing the way for a vote in September on health-care legislation.
Six senators were also engaged in closed-door negotiations aimed at a bipartisan deal as a new Gallup poll suggested only 44 per cent of Americans believe new health-care laws would improve medical care in the United States.
Amid this uneasy environment, interest groups opposed to President Barack Obama's plans have been pulling out all the stops by injecting values into the argument, suggesting his plan will result in more abortions and seniors being encouraged to end their lives.
Republicans have been urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for an explicit exclusion of abortion services in any health-care bill, and have threatened to stall debate in the House of Representatives if it doesn't happen.
What the two silly, silly people in the commercial don't understand is thaat abortions solve their problem: not only does he manage to avoid surgery when the fetuses are rendered into magical stem cells, but his wife also gets to enjoy youth-restoring fetus-based cosmetics! How can anyone oppose those noble goals?
More seriously, I am confused about the invocation of choice by opponents of this health plan? So far as I know, unlike Canada's Medicare, the plan would not make doctors employees of government, instead mandating the individual's purchase of insurance with subsidies from employers and the government thrown in. It can understand how some American conservatives might see the Canadian system as intrusive, although as André Picard points out the anti-Medicare case made by Canadian Shona Holmes on American television is misleading, to say the least. But mandating individuals' purchase of insurance?
The rhetoric opposing national medicare in the United States seems to centre around fears that individuals will lose their autonomy, their freedom of choice. How can they be free to choose, I wonder, if they're unable to afford basic therapies and have to go without? I'm quite confused.
Can one of you help me?
