Watch original video:

Despite the shock and awe of Democrats’ melodramatic news releases, nobody was genuinely bewildered or surprised by the recent McClatchy newspaper headline screaming that “GOP lawmakers tout projects in the stimulus bill they opposed.” We all discern that politicians love to brag around bringing home the bacon

Far more baffling are those same politicians contradicting their foundational philosophy. When that starts happening, as it is in the debate over health worry one’sitting self, things have power to become authentically confusing.

Anyone who remembers the 1993-94 health-care fights knows that Republicans have all along asserted that private insurance is additional efficacious and more adored by patients than government-run programs like Medicare. To solve the health-care crisis, those on the right say we must foster more price-cutting, efficiency-producing competition.

“The American population be assured of that innovation, unusual, and competition work,” wrote GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma in an archetypal op-ed entitled “Competition Solves Health Care.”

Give conservatives credit here: At minimum, this argument had a logic to it, still flawed. Sure, it is belied by dint of. data

That all changed, though, when Democrats this week began pushing to let citizens buy into a government-sponsored health plan similar to the one federal lawmakers enjoy.

The allegedly competition-loving GOP this moment stated its strong counteraction on the dregs that the initiative would begin “forcing free-market plans to enter the lists with government-run programs,” as congressional Republicans lamented.

While Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri insisted that the GOP remains “committed to common-sense solutions that assist competition,” he declared his party is “concerned that if the government” is permitted to compete, “it will eventually push disclosed the particular health-care plans.”

Hold on a second. Don’t Republicans insist that “competition solves health care?” Yes, ad nauseam.

Haven’privately they been telling us that government programs are obviously worse than private health insurance? Yes again.

Then, don’t they welcome a private-versus-public emulation, believing that the former will easily trump the latter? Well … uh … not one.

As I said, this is truly perplexing.

In one breath, GOP Jekylls say government medical plans will subsist feeble, inferior to private insurance and thus hated by Americans. In another breath, Republican Hydes effectively admit that government programs would be so prime mover, superior to personal assurance and loved by Americans that they will attract in the greatest degree consumers and dominate a health-care emulation.

Of the two assertions, of course, the latter is closer to the truth

Republican lawmakers received the new Commonwealth Fund report showing that a public system would save consumers $2 trillion through reduced premiums and lower administrative costs. They see surveys showing the country overwhelmingly wants the government to create a public hale condition program

Republicans can’privately barely acknowledge these truisms, though, for doing so would undermine the insurance industry that’s filling their campaign coffers. So instead, we get pro-competition, government-is-ineffective “conservatives” working to thwart competition and implicitly admitting they believe government be pleased be moreover effective.

Yes, when it comes to rivalry, Republicans were for it before they were against it. And this period, that confounding flip-flop doesn’t merely threaten a bumbling presidential candidate, it imperils a health-care rotation.

OpenLeft.com or e-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com

Original text: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008856386_opina16sirota.html?syndication=rss