Bob78164 wrote:Show me that he had considered before the storm broke the likely effect the proposal would have had on the price veterans would pay for private insurance. --Bob
Without getting into the 'true believer' stuff (for the moment), this one point fascinates me: either Obama DID consider the effects of the proposal, or he DID NOT consider the effects of the proposal.
If he DID consider the effects-- which are very obvious and clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together-- then it seems pretty clear that he backed off solely because of the firestorm that was beginning to develop, in which case he seems to have made a decision based entirely upon how the wind blows.
If he DID NOT consider the consequences, well, I'm not sure how to categorize this, but doesn't that mean he is just spinning ideas and hoping that someone else will explain to him and his administration why a particular idea is good or not, and what might happen if he acts upon a particular idea? And if he is in the habit of just throwing out random ideas and looking for 'feedback,' well, does that not suggest that he is inclined to make a final decision based upon which way the wind blows?
The problem with the supposition that he did NOT consider the consequences is that it suggests that, at the very least, he is not thinking things through at all. In this particular instance, even before considering whether it is a good or bad idea, there are two things that immediately leap to my mind: (1) anyone who is in the military (whether on active duty or reserve status) who has private health insurance will face huge premium increases, simply because her/his risk has gone up (assuming that a private insurer is even willing or able to cover those risks), and (2) most insurance policies include specific 'act of war' exemptions, which expressly do NOT provide coverage for any loss that is the result of any 'act of war' (and the policies typically go so far as to define 'war' as including 'undeclared' war, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan). Now, you can argue whether or not the proposal would be good policy or not, given those considerations, but I hardly think that you can justify suggesting such a policy if you have not, at the very least, considered those considerations. If you are correct in your supposition that
he had [not] considered before the storm broke the likely effect the proposal would have had on the price veterans would pay for private insurance,
well, he is probably the only person in the country who did
not think of that.
And to get back to the 'true believer' point, this is what I am getting at: it seems to me that there are some people who will accept ANYTHING that Obama does or says, no matter how whack, and they will find some way to justify it (just as there are some people who will object to ANYTHING that Obama does or says, no matter how honorable and well-thought out, and will find some way to attack it). If someone were to take the position that Obama is doing a pretty good job generally, although, like Homer, he sometimes nods, I would have no problem with it: I might not agree with them, but I would not have any problem with their taking that approach. Similarly, if someone were to take the position that Obama is doing a pretty lousy job generally, although, like the Cubs, he does win one occasionally, I would have no problem with it: I might not agree with them, but I would not have any problem with their taking that approach. But when someone seems to take the position that Obama is infallible (and there is only one person, in one very narrowly constrained set of circumstances, to whom I concede infallibility), or when someone seems to take the position that Obama is the anti-Christ (and there is only one person, in one very narrowly constrained set of circumstances, to whom I concede, um, anti-Christness), well, this vexes me.
Innocent, naive and whimsical. And somewhat footloose and fancy-free.
