Specious Pundit Commentary And Obamacare

Eleanor Clift suggested on the McLaughlin Group today that Obama's "stimulus package is slowly working" and "has helped America avoid a depression".

Wow.

Seriously.

Aside from essentially being unable to prove this, it's awfully hard to A) prove a stimulus was needed and B) when and if it can work. This is an incredibly absurd and frivolous comment to make. Then again, Clift is not exactly an objective observer.

If anything, Obama's starting to make people nervous. Independent voters statistics are showing they're slowly moving away from Obama. Obama is called a "centrist". Personally, I can't see how nationalizing and taking over various parts of the economy or expanding the government is "centrist". The irony of course being that while Bush was heavily criticized for going agaisnt the wishes of the America population on a few issues, Obama is starting to do the exact same thing on the economy. People aren't stupid, you know.

And enough with the "we inherited a mess" thing. The Democrats seized control of Congress during Bush's last two years - right about the time the economy began slipping. No one ever says "we inherited a great economy" so they shouldn't say it in the reverse. In politics, governments and their policies overlap with one another. That's life. The blame game is not productive. Isn't Obama supposed to be above partisanship?

Now on the Obama docket is medicare and finding a way to get "45 million people without insurance gain access to insurance". I've been hearing about this 45 million figure for quite some time and tackled it so long ago I can't remember in which post. The number seems high-ish but means nothing on its own. That's why, I turn to factcheck.org to explain and enlighten. Canadian readers of this blog may want to pay close attention since it's my contention our ignorance of American health doesn't prevent us from making outrageous claims about the American system.

"...the makeup of the uninsured, finding that according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 percent are U.S. citizens, more than 80 percent are from families where at least one person holds a job, and two-thirds earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold – i.e., less than $42,406 for a family of four in 2007, the most recent year for which Census has figures for the uninsured. (KFF is a nonpartisan think tank that describes itself as "an evidence-based voice for people in the health system," especially the uninsured and "those most vulnerable and disadvantaged." It does not lobby for or against legislation.)

This does, indisputably, mean that 21 percent are not U.S. citizens (they're both legal and illegal immigrants) and one-third earn more than 200 percent of the poverty level. Does this mean that the "real number" of the uninsured should be lower? Let's look at some of the common claims..."

"...In short, it's true that many of the 45.7 million "uninsured" could find coverage through existing government programs or pay for their own coverage if they chose. Some, perhaps 6 million, are illegal immigrants who would not receive coverage under any proposal now being considered. Do these amount to half the total, as former Sen. Thompson implied? That's possible, but we judge that the available evidence doesn't support that conclusion."

Read the entire study here.

I don't know if Americans need an overhaul or some tweaking to their system. I'm too ignorant of the details and facts. In the end, that's for Americans to decide.