The Case for Nationalizing Whatever-It-Is

For the record, this article appeared in the Washington Post Tuesday, November 18. Coupla comments -

1) Mr. Kennedy has been an advocate for nationalized health insurance, or nationalized something-or-other, since at least the early 1970’s. And his Elmer Gantry persona continues to preach “legislation that would vastly expand health coverage.” That sounds like he's talking about health insurance. But . . .

2) But . . . strangely, for someone who claims to have immersed himself in this issue for nearly 40 years, the Senator from the People's State of Massachusetts serves up a garbled message. For that matter, so does the Post reporter. Just look at this mess of reportage. First paragraph, health care. Second paragraph, coverage – that is, health insurance. Third and fourth paragraphs, health care. Fifth paragraph, health insurance again. What the heck is Mr. Kennedy talking about? Does he know? Does he have some reason to pretend health insurance and health care are synonymous? Does he think the public either won't pay attention to what he says or won't care? It's impossible to tell from this article whether Mr. Kennedy's confusion is deliberate - or results from carelessness or ignorance.

Right now, Mr. Kennedy's positions do not show that he understands the difference between health care and health insurance. Doesn't the public deserve better? Shouldn't the Elmer Gantry of nationalized whatever-it-is be able to clearly articulate whatever it is?? There are lots of ways Mr. Kennedy could fix his own message. He could ask someone on his staff. Better yet, he could read this.