The left frequently pulls off for absurdity as to movie itself. One of those instances just became public through a release from Health Affairs that purports to create an objective for the new administration.  ,
Teaser call to Health Affairs and its audience: Few if any of the people in these agenda-crafting work will get somewhere near the new leadership. And they don’t, if only because the people behind these laws appear to have no knowledge of politics or political philosophy.
Forthcoming ( Marxist ) Policy Proposals
The week of the opening, Health Affairs launched its 2025″ Essential Guidelines” plan with an online entry describing and summarizing six commissioned essays to be published in the publication’s next topic. However, to understand that these guidelines instantly oppose not only President Trump’s agenda but also what the British people voted for in November when they elected him, one doesn’t even need to have a membership to the blog or to learn the six essays when they are published.
For starters, the introductory article uses the word “equity” or some variation thereof ( e. g., “equitable” ) no fewer than 17 times in a roughly 3, 300-word piece. Seventeen days.
Heck, “equity” is a theme of one of the essays— especially, “addressing the impact of climate change on health and capital”. The article is described in the online introduction as follows:
In the United States and around the world, climate change poses an extraordinary threat to human health and well-being. These results are currently disproportionately affecting communities with social and economic disadvantages, aggravateing health disparities. … The authors call for a change to clean energy sources by halting new fossil fuel infrastructure, repealing fossil fuel subsidies, and increasing cash for zero-carbon power sources.
Translation: The American people — including those in “economically impoverished areas” — should paid higher prices at the pump, not to mention the grocery shop, so the woke group is virtue-signal about how it’s promoting “equity”. So much for the electorate using their votes to stifle their families as inflation is crashing!
It continues on from there, generally promoting Green New Deal-style ideas sprang from health policy. About the only surprise comes from one of the authors of this paper: Bill Frist, former Senate Majority Leader, R-Tenn. I’ve lived in Washington for a long time, and I can recall when he was viewed as a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president. Thank God that didn’t happen.
Another essay comes from (among others ) Donald Berwick, who proposes a “bold transformation of the US health care system”, one where “racial and ethnic health disparities are eliminated”, which will require “investing in health equity”. For those who don’t remember — and how could you forget? — Because the Democrats in the Senate at the time refused to allow him to cast a ballot, Berwick is the technocrat who served as the administrator of Barack Obama’s Medicare and Medicaid programs for a while. A supporter of socialized medicine who has radical views that would prevent them from succeeding in a Democratic-controlled Senate is not the type of person Health Affairs should look to when developing a politically feasible agenda.
Read the Room, People!
In a nutshell, that pretty much sums up the entire Health Affairs endeavor: a group of academics creating policies with little chance of passing. The articles in question may have been written well before the election due to the extended, long lead times for a peer-reviewed publication.
However, publishing these kinds of articles in the present environment appears to be politically tone deaf because it is politically tone deaf. The American people recently voted to put an end to racism and discrimination perpetrated under the guise of “equity” and hold those responsible for years of Covid lockdowns and the harm that came with them. This medical clerisy continues to act as though nothing has changed on November 5 and that lawmakers will be more or less willing to support an agenda that voters have rejected, the policy equivalent of “more cowbell“!
The second mule kick has no educational value, according to a cult-favorable saying. However, it may take more than one election “kick” for this group to develop policies and messaging that can win broad bipartisan support if the health policy “experts” continue acting like election results don’t matter and that voters are mere pawns that elites may order around as they please.
