Andrea Mitchell: People with insurance who oppose ObamaCare "may not know what's good for them"

Via Breitbart, consider this a video companion to Karl’s post. She’s totally right, incidentally: It’s certainly possible that we halfwit proles with private insurance might have misjudged where our true self-interest lies. But the same could be said of virtually any group involved in any issue — e.g., anti-war types “may not know what’s good for them” in opposing the effort to counter jihadism with democracy — and yet, curiously, it isn’t. To think, Megan McArdle was worried about elitist liberals using health care to dictate to the masses what’s in their best interest.

As for the current state of the House bill, it’s almost impossible to keep up. Last night liberal Democrats were warning the Blue Dogs they’re prepared to join the GOP in torpedoing a center-left compromise. Then, a few hours ago, Waxman announced a compromise on the Energy and Commerce Committee by which Blue Dogs would get to keep subsidies for middle-class families to buy their own insurance in return for liberal Dems getting lower premiums for the uninsured and a floor vote on a single-payer government takeover (which won’t pass). Meanwhile, in the Senate, Reid and company are preparing for “plan B,” i.e. abandoning the GOP entirely and ramming the bill home on a strict party-line vote, which is fine by me. Will Snowe, Grassley, etc., blink anyway? The only thing that’s certain at this point: If, as Krauthammer said, you’re young and healthy and not interested in paying for insurance right now, you’re about to get soaked. But that’s what you get for not knowing what’s good for you.