What's interesting to me is that when you click through to the link she references and read it there are links that would seem to be intended to prove John Boehner's assertion that a government run health plan would require all subscribers to pay "abortion premiums," but the link that should go to the reference material detailing the supposed required premium instead goes to another webpage with a quote from Boehner. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is going to be an assertion that is very similar to the forced euthenasia crap that was being thrown around over the summer. From where I'm sitting the GOP strategy is:
- Pick one hot-button item out of an immense and complex bill
- Intentionally misread the language, or at least take it out of context, to make a fiction-based assertion about the bill
- Blast it to your frothing constituency
- Hope that the accumulated weight of the multiple assertions can eventually bring down the bill
Stay tuned to see if that's the case. What bugs me about this approach is that it distracts people from the "meat" of the health care debate. I have no problem with people disagreeing with each other on the fundamental issues like whether or not it is the proper role of the government to provide an alternative to private health insurance, whether or not there should be programs like Medicare and Medicaid, etc. I do, however, have a very big problem with people using deceptive tactics like these to try and defeat a bill rather than arguing about it on its merits.
BTW, convenient timing of this release, what with the Tea Party event on the Hill today wouldn't you say?