In his most recent “Week in Review,” Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave Westlake discusses all that’s wrong with the health care reform proposals Democrats like Sen. Russ Feingold are working to enact. In said “Week in Review” piece, Westlake cites a number of examples of how flawed the health care reform proposals are, including, “rations healthcare based on a minimum actuarial value (p. 29, H.R. 3200).” As I read Westlake’s “Week in Review,” I quickly came to realize it should be called his “Weak in Review,” because it’s nothing more than a regurgitation of talking points from a chain email that’s been thoroughly debunked by the good folks over at PolitiFact.com. I’ve received the email in question a few times, and I find it more than a little curious that a candidate for the U.S. Senate would resort to blindly regurgitating what he read in a chain email.
What’s next, Dave Westlake relaying to voters some great information he got in an email about winning the European Lottery? Or perhaps he’s got the inside line on some great waterfront investment property in Florida…
And while we’re on the subject of Dave Westlake not knowing what he’s talking about, I’d like to dissect this gem, also from Westlake’s most recent “Weak in Review” (emphasis mine):
The more we know about government-run healthcare, the more we’re a nation—not a party—of “no.” It is, like Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that don’t apply to Members of Congress, nothing more than a classic example of Washington attempting to manage a problem that plagues our country, rather than leading us out of it.
Since Dave Westlake is unable – or just plain unwilling – to do a little basic research, I’ve done all the heavy lifting for him.
FACT: Members of Congress do participate in the Social Security system, and they have since 1984. That means they pay Social Security taxes, and they’re also eligible to receive Social Security benefits.
Dave Westlake just isn’t ready for prime time, and I can’t help but wonder if he wouldn’t have been better off running for Watertown’s Common Council – perhaps then he’d be taken a little more seriously as a candidate for elected office.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
Zach,
The analysis provided by the good folks at Politifact.com seems a little ignorant and too conclusory for my taste.
For example, it notes:
“The government does not set wages for doctors because doctors are free to decline to see the patients.”
I grew up in a medical family and can attest that statement is what Politifact.com would call “pants on fire.” My family members have frequently been called in during the middle of the night to see patients. They simply could not “decline to see the patients” because the individual was on medicare or medicaid.