The New York Times Advises Using the Nuclear Option to Pass Health Care Reform

The New York Times, that bastion of rational thought and unbiased reporting, is urging in an editorial published on August 29, 2009, that the Democrats use the "nuclear option" to pass health care. The nuclear option is a nickname for "budget reconciliation", which is normally used for budget items and not big issues.

The Times makes several false statements in its editorial. Among them:

• That the Republicans are determined to scuttle Obama's health care reform at all costs. Some Republicans have put up similar ideas to Obama's. Many others, though, have put forth other ideas that focus on the market and keep the government out of it. The Times, though, conveniently forgets that the Democrats also refuse to consider any Republican alternative.


• They state that "these changes are intended to be deficit-neutral over the next decade", but the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out that the programs proposed are going to cost big money. There are no specific plans to cut spending in the health care plans put forward.


• "Delay would be foolish politically". Personally, I hope the Democrats take them up on this. People are talking recalls and are organizing against the proposals. Every politician who wants to push the issue stands to lose.


• They state the "Republican Party that has sloughed off most of its moderates and is dominated by its right wing." The problem with the Republican party isn't that it is ruled by the right wing, but by moderates. The Republicans lost the election because they spent like drunken sailors -- or Democrats. They lost their way and paid for it.

The editorial talks about how much of the health care bill could fit into this procedure and talks specifically about the money paid to hospitals and practitioners: "Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify, especially if it is given greater power than currently planned to dictate the prices it will pay to hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other providers, thus saving the government lots of money in subsidies." That's right -- let's pay them so little they will go out of business, guaranteeing a government takeover.

The editorial can be found here.