ShareThis Page

Debating health care: Euphemisms ...

| Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2009

Shakespeare ("a rose by any other name") and Orwell ("Newspeak") would recognize as insidious Democrat euphemisms aimed at making palatable that which leaves a bad taste in the electorate's mouth.

Discussing health care reform at a Florida senior center, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., referred to "competitive option" and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., referred to "the consumer option" -- not to the "public option."

Mrs. Pelosi contends "public option" -- the government foot in the door that leads to private health insurers' demise -- is a misrepresentation.

That's one heck of a statement from someone who just debuted a new way to misrepresent a concept -- misrepresented by Democrats throughout the debate -- that the public still isn't buying. And that underlines Democrats' unseemly determination to enact "reform" that the American people oppose.

Time will tell whether these Democrat neologisms will deserve induction into the same Hall of Sophistry Shame -- er, Pantheon of Political Rebranding -- that enshrines such all-time lows as "revenue enhancement."

For now, remember that "public option" by any other name stinks just as badly as it always has -- and so does politicians' mangling of language to obfuscate.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.