A few draft-versions of health care reform have been offered since this spring; all of them have had one thing in common. Conservative pundits have done a great job of highlighting a commonality in all of them: 2013. The regulations limiting freedom in choice will begin in 2013. So much for the plea that we need reform now!

Commentators have forwarded the notion that those in leadership now facing re-election in 2012 will be, beating the ill effects of government-controlled healthcare as they are not implemented for another year. I consider this "Plan A."

Politicians like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberal congressman have little to fear. The districts they are elected from will continue to elect them. Voters in these locales have drunk the Kool-Aid. The only thing that matters is that we are one step closer to Universal Healthcare. Any problems with the new will be moot. As President Obama says at every option, "this is not a perfect bill. But it is a step closer..."

Plan A relies on the Democrats being re-elected en masse under the belief that they were successful in causing reform. And it any loss of seats or control would come after 2013. Kind of a drive-by lawmaking. Consequences be damned, the change enacted.

Plan B relies on realization that over the next three years, enough light will be shed on aspects of the bill. "Regular" people will be so upset with the unintended and intended consequences alike that they vote out the Democrats in 2012. Given enough time - a single election cycle is a lifetime - the assumed new Republican majority will pegged with causing any downsides relating to the healthcare regulation. In 2016 another Democratic sweep will take place as the Fourth Estate successfully paints the Republicans responsible.

Don't think it is possible? It worked for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and W. My wife gets all the Union magazines for educators. Every issue contains how George Bush messed up the law or wasn't funded properly. There is no mention of NCLB's author, Ted Kennedy! Never mind that the president neither writes legislation nor controls the "purse strings."

Plan A is the optimal option, it keeps power going. Plan B, less desirable, is still suitable for the Dems. They have a scapegoat for the complications which will reverberate through America on all levels. 2016 isn't too far away for them.

When You Say It Enough...

Your prejudices don't seem so distasteful. This past Sunday morning [October 18, 2009] I stopped clicking on ABC's weekend news show This Week. I normally don't watch them, but when I do, it is usually the Fox offering with Chris Wallace. This particular Sunday I recognized why I do not patronize most non-Fox shows.

George "Clinton Administration" Stephanopoulos host the show and moderates the group opinion-discussion portion. This Week, not unlike all the others, try to have a bi-partisan panel. Yet on this particular broadcast, George's political persuasion was revealed - and he may not have even noticed it. [Although I didn't need "proof" of his belief, this incident lends credence.]

Video: Roundtable: 2010 Midterms

Discussing a few local races and problems they each have, E.J. Dionne Jr. appears unaware of the Tea Party's actual name :

Dionne Jr.: The conservative party in New York state put up a right-wing candidate supported by the "teabaggers"... {video -5:16}

Mr Dionne finished his point by presuming the Republicans have a long struggle ahead of them. Then George springboards off E.J.'s point to facilitate the discussion, addressing Peggy Noonan, he says:

Stephanopoulos: This hardcore part of the [Republican] base is in a world unto its own. Uh, right now. The "Teabag Movement" and they are sort of driven by the idea that President Obama and Democrats have a secret plan to impose Socialism. {video -4:50}

While George was speaking, the camera was trained on Peggy Noonan. She was ready to respond to the question George was asking when he uttered "teabag movement." Peggy does a little speculating why the Republicans in upstate New York in turmoil before subtly admonishing E.J. for using the slur "teabagger." {video -4:16}

What if sportscasters were to start referring to Green Bay's football team as the "Fudge Packers?" Would that not cause a big problem? Well, degrading a large group of Americans peacefully protesting to show their disagreement with the government's spending and law making is of poor taste for a media outlet. I would expect this from cable channels or left-wing black helicopter blogs.

{video -4:16} = point in ABC's clip where quote was made