Maiello: Defeat the Press
Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game
At this site a couple of weeks ago, the always estimable Articleman posted the definitive explanation why Paul Ryan would sink the Romney ship. If you listened to my radio show this past Wednesday from 8-9a Pacific, you would have heard "A" sensibly, in my view, pull back from his earlier declamation. I agree that the Paul Ryan choice is problematic for Romney and that Ryan's (and Romney's current) position on medicare may be outcome determinative. Nevertheless, we'd be a little too early and optimistic to so conclude.
Not according to the sometimes estimable Melissa Harris-Perry (MHP) who published an article, dated August 22, that "appeared" in the September 10, 2012 Nation.
Brief digression: Are you wondering how an article can have "appeared" in an edition that won't be published for two weeks? Me too.
Back from digression: MHP argues that it's Ryan's extreme view on abortion rights (women deserve none), not necessarily medicare, that will torpedo the ticket. After reading in Women's Health the editor's description of her positive experience at Planned Parenthood when she was 15 and the angst that women should feel when contemplating a Romney-Ryan victory, MHP believes that the Republican position is just too extreme to carry a national election.
She may be right but I doubt it. If any position will sink Romney-Ryan, it's medicare. Virtually every American either benefits from it now or hopes to in the future. Many of us who have good employer-provided health insurance or can afford to buy it on our own at a young and healthy age, are perfectly willing to reject universal health-care thereby throwing country-men and women to the wolves.
But, we still worry about what will happen to us when we reach retirement age. We know that if we have to pay for our own healthcare from 65 on, we will face a huge, growing, and for many ultimately insurmountable burden. The idea of a voucher that goes to an insurance company and will not cover the entire premium has little or no appeal. All who are not superrich are very glad to have medicare when we turn 65 and we are right to be. After all, cancer treatments can literally cost millions of dollars and wipe out very sizable savings. Quite simply, eliminating medicare as a single-payer program that covers every American above a certain age is a much tougher sell than eliminating abortion.
Men can't get pregnant and no woman past menopause can have an unwanted pregnancy. Plus, there are many women of child-bearing age who for a variety of reasons can't imagine ever seeking an abortion. As important as choice is, its loss does not strike fear in the heart of nearly every American the way that the loss of medicare does. I think it should but it doesn't.