ta-daah!
bill o'reilly, who i will not pretend is actually deserving of this new move toward the middle of the political spectrum, has said something that i can appreciate.
he recently eulogized the public healthcare option (which he claims is now officially dead) by saying this:
I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.
dude, yes. i don't care if it isn't the socialized medicine i would love to see done, and done right, in this country. but why not this as a bipartisan solution? look out for the little guy. or for pete rose, just look out for everyone. is that such a horrible idea?
there are now 2 bills to consider, here. a bill in the house, and one in the senate, and if you thought the first bill was long, buckle up, buttercup. these two bills combine to a total of 1817 pages. looks like we have some reading to do, eh, folks?
i do have to wonder if o'reilly isn't making these statements simply because he considers the public option already dead, and he wants to pander to a larger audience, however, two posts ago i commented that to mistrust a positive move toward something desired simply based on principle, or spite is no way to make progress.
so, bill, mr o'reilly, papa bear, thanks for making sense, for once. keep up the good work and you might actually get me to watch your show, and not just find free snippets of it on the huffington post.
perhaps, somewhere, deep down, we might have a mid range, or just off to the right media, afterall.
No comments:
Post a Comment