Sarah Palin Preempts Obama

This evening at 7:45 ET, the Wall Street Journal published a opinion editorial by Sarah Palin:

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

With those words she begins another exquisitely timed attack on Obama’s plans for a health care bill.

She discusses his plan to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council and reiterates her previous statement about death panels:

Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

She next moves on to discuss the fiscal implications:

The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result.

She next demolishes his argument that health care “reform” will give consumer protection by holding insurance companies accountable, by deftly turning his words and using it as an argument against Obama and the Democrats:

And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Finally, she calls for:

…real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven….giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines.

Her conclusion:

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals….They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

Once again her timing reveals her as a point guard who has mastered when and where and how to move on the court. The common sense suggestions she mentions will resonate with Americans.  She is driving the discussion.

Obama’s speech now becomes a response to her editorial!

Crossposted to J’s Cafe Nette.


H/T: bc3b: WSJ link; Wall Street Journal.