'This Week' Transcript: Napolitano, Gibbs, McConnell

And this is just like the 9/11 guys, sort of, like the Fort Hood guy. And so they're trapped between these two worlds, and they imagine some pure Islamic ideology of the past which they're going to act out by killing people. And it's the ideology that matters, and it can happen to somebody living in London or Hamburg or anywhere else around the world, and then they find Yemen.

TAPPER: There are reports -- and again, early reports -- reports that he may have been radicalized in London, where he went to school.

But I want to turn now to another big issue, which is health care reform, which I know has been consuming a lot of your attention.

Specifically, Paul, you wrote a recent op-ed saying -- in favor of the Senate health care reform measure. And you said those who oppose it fall into three groups. These are your characterizations, not mine.

One would be the crazy right. Two would be unhappy progressives who wanted more. And three would be what you called the "Bah, Humbug" caucus, fiscal scolds.

Now, I don't want to point fingers, but...


... one of your fellow colleagues in the New York Times op-ed page, is opposing the health care reform measure.


TAPPER: I'm assuming you don't think David is a member of the crazy right?


BROOKS: Let's not jump to conclusions.



MARCUS: ... disappointed progressive.

KRUGMAN: Let me say this. The objection, supposedly, is it doesn't do enough control costs. And you have to ask, you know, what more, realistically, could you expect?

I know David (inaudible) in one article of his. There was a later one, a recent one, which said, look, they are in fact trying everything that people have suggested, in the form of pilot programs. There's a whole list of things that we think might control costs. This is going to be in the legislation. It's something that's going to be tried.

This is the first serious attempt we've made to control health care costs. And by doing that, it actually proves something to people like me, advocates of universal coverage have been saying, which is that the only way to control costs is as part of a package that also covers the uninsured, that you're not going to be able to just go and say to people, OK, we're going to take away some of your health care. You're going to have to go to them and say, this is is what we need to do in order to provide health security to everybody.

And this is a -- this is landmark piece of legislation, flawed, annoying, underfunded. Lots of things are wrong with it. I wish there was a public option. I wish there were lots of things in there. But this is the most dramatic move toward getting rational about health care spending, at the same time that it finally fills at least a good part of the hole in our system, the holes in our safety net.

So, you know...


BROOKS: I don't oppose it because I want to step on the necks of the poor, as you could say. I oppose it, and it's a close call for me. Because we used to spend 10 percent of our GNP on health care; now it's 17 percent. Soon it will be 20 percent, 22 percent -- more on health care, less on education, less on infrastructure, less on investment, less on everything else.

Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...