Sept. 6, 2006
Hello again, Governor:
Governor, I'm afraid I have to interrupt my series of somewhat lighthearted pro-SB840 arguments to draw your attention to a real problem you are suddenly facing: some prankster has published 600 words of poisonous dishonest bilge and made it appear to be a press release from you, sir. If you haven't seen this travesty yet, here is a link: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/3751, but I have to warn you, it will make your blood boil! Whoever wrote this screed is either a woefully misinformed rube or a malicious liar who cares nothing for Californians' health and economy, and I feel certain that the man who played "Kindergarten Cop" could be neither.
If I were you I would ask myself, do I have a disgruntled staffer? Or was it an especially devious insurance lobbyist? Or perhaps a clever operative from your opponent's camp---they would certainly have a vested interest in making you appear to be a heartless mercenary! As the motivation here is obviously to trap you into vetoing the universal-health bill and losing the election, may I suggest you distance yourself from this outrageous prank by immediately signing the bill, and then commencing investigation and prosecution of the perpetrator, who shall for now be referred to as "Impostor X."
The first clues that you had nothing to do with this press release come fast and furious: "government-run health care" in the title, the first and the ninth sentences, and "socialized medicine" in the second sentence. Now I know you know better than to use those stupid and inaccurate buzzwords; for one thing, anybody who has done any study and thought at all about health policy, and has so much as glanced at SB840, knows that it is neither of those things; for another, YOU AND I have been over this before, so I will spare you the reasons SB840 is neither socialist nor government-run healthcare. I mean… you don't live in a bubble like our President, do you, surrounded by people who only say what you want to hear? And yet, the buzzwords flow as regularly, calculatedly, and meaninglessly as our Dear Leader's Sept. 11 references. But of course, you had nothing to do with this press release though. Perish the thought.
Impostor X has you put your foot even further into your mouth when he (or she) starts griping about the program "costing the state billions and leading to significant new taxes on individuals and businesses, without solving the critical issue of affordability." Once again, whoever wrote this either has never glanced at the bill or is lying through his (or her) teeth. In fact, the new premiums, taking the place of all the premiums, co-pays and deductibles we pay now, will save all of us money-to the tune of 8 billion a year statewide; and "solving the critical issue of affordability" is exactly what this bill---and nothing else currently on the table---does! This impostor certainly does want to make you look like a confused fool. I would be very angry.
Impostor X's cruelest and most ironic touch is having you say "I want to see a new paradigm that addresses affordability, shared responsibility and the promotion of healthy living,"---all in the context of promising a veto of the one best chance we have of achieving those goals!
I must say, Senator Kuehl is being patently unfair when she writes "With his statement that he plans to veto SB840, we see the real Arnold." But you see the situation you're in now---people actually think you wrote this nonsense, or at least approved it! I feel certain that once you have signed SB840 into law and won the election, you will use all your resources to track down the real culprit and stand exonerated of this crime against health and truth!
Wait a second! Who put that picture there! That's not funny! Take it off! (I've got to get a new webmaster…)
Sincerely,
Vern Nelson, (714) 235-VERN
Argument #1, Sept. 1, 2006
Argument #2, Sept. 2, 2006
Argument #3, Sept. 3, 2006
Argument #4, Sept. 4, 2006
Argument #5, Sept. 5, 2006
Argument #6, Sept. 6, 2006
Argument #7, Sept. 7, 2006
Argument #8, Sept. 8, 2006
Argument #9, Sept. 9, 2006
Argument #10, Sept. 10, 2006
Argument #11, Sept. 11, 2006
Argument #12, Sept. 12, 2006
Argument #13, Sept. 13, 2006
Argument #14, Sept. 14, 2006
Argument #15, Sept. 15, 2006
Argument #16, Sept. 16, 2006
Argument #17, Sept. 17, 2006
Argument #18, Sept. 18, 2006
Argument #19, Sept. 19, 2006
Argument #20, Sept. 20, 2006
Argument #21, Sept. 21, 2006
Argument #22, Sept. 22, 2006
Argument #23, Sept. 23, 2006
Argument #24, Sept. 24, 2006
Argument #25, Sept. 25, 2006
Argument #26, Sept. 26, 2006
Argument #27, Sept. 27, 2006
Argument #28, Sept. 28, 2006
Argument #29, Sept. 21, 2006
Argument #30, Sept. 30, 2006