Conyers on Health Care: The Emanuel Factor

Apparently, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) is unhappy with the president's change of mind on the Democrats' so-called "single-payer" health insurance plan. According to proponents, this government-run system would reduce costs by reducing administration -- and as we all know, the government is wonderfully adept at reducing administration. So, I guess that's why network news outlets didn't tell you the downside of government run "health care", and House Democrats didn't want you to see this administrative flow chart:


(You can see an enlarged PDF version of the flow chart here.) What precipitated Obama's change of mind on his party's single-payer plan, in favor of the bill now under consideration in the House? Conyers told reporters at the National Press Club on Friday that his "guess" was that Obama "wants it because of the Rahm Emanuel factor." He explains:

. . . The Rahm Emanuel factor, to quote him [Emanuel], is that, look, we want success, and we're willing to make a deal about anything. . .

“And that’s the whole idea, is that he wants a bill," said Conyers. "He wants to win in the off-year elections. He [Emanuel] wants our president reelected the next time he comes up, and so do I. But I don't want anything that's stamped ‘reform’ and let it go at that.” [See the video...]

So, according to Conyers, Emanuel said he's willing to "make a deal about anything". Apparently, whether the plan is beneficial to the people or not doesn't matter so much, when weighed against Democrats retaining power. "He [Emanuel] wants to win in off-year elections. He wants our president reelected the next time he comes up" says Conyers, who then asks, "Does that make you feel pretty comfortable about health care?"

Some of us are uncomfortable for reasons that go far beyond transplanted Chicago-style politics. There is a reason that Congress refused to saddle itself with the plan. Seems what's good for us (the cattle) isn't good for them (the ranchers). Beyond protecting their own personal interests, a number of our alleged representatives won't even burden themselves with the task of reading the legislation -- and that, by the way, includes Democrat John Conyers:

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

There are those who, like little children who have unshakable faith in their parents, believe that our loving, trustworthy government will always do what's best for us. I am not among them. What with back-room deals designed to benefit political careers at the people's expense, and representatives who can't be bothered to read legislation that will affect our lives and health, should we be "pretty comfortable" about about a Democrat-controlled Congress legislating government control of health care?

For me -- sadly, but without a doubt -- the answer is absolutely not.