(H/T: Instapundit) So, Politico publishes this story called "Four hard truths of health care reform" - which is Politico's way of saying 'Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster, but we're going to try to spin it as well as we can anyway' - and there's two reasons why the tone of said story is amazing in its effrontery. The first reason is the way that it presents the aforementioned 'hard truths' as if they had just only now been revealed unto the populace, instead of being pretty much known all along. Don't believe me? Take a look: below is each 'hard truth' Politico documents.
- "Some people won’t get to keep the coverage they like."
- "Costs aren’t going to go down."
- "It’s just a guess that the law can pay for itself."
- "“The more they know, the more they'll like it” isn’t happening."
...and that's just me. I'm hardly unique.
Then there's the second reason why this story is amazing in its effrontery; if Politico wants to take this disingenuous a tone over Obamacare (particularly on how much it was, and would still be, hated) then it possibly should read its own freaking archives. After all, they wrote an article about the controversy (called "Democrats guess wrong on health care") in September.
That would be September of 2010.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Am I being fair to Politico? Depends on how you define the word. What I'm doing is treating Politico as an unofficial, but very real, partisan ally of the Democrats over Obamacare. Which is perhaps mean of me, but as I grow older I grow ever more impatient with the idea of letting people pretend to objectivity when they have no real intent in actually being objective.