Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

American Extremists: "ObamaScare"

vastleft's picture

0
No votes yet

Comments

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Well, I could use an extra day, too. Nice graphic image.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Thx for spotting the blooper!

Submitted by jawbone on

at least seem to indicate they will have House vote on Senate bill as is prior to Senate making any "improvements" to make the bill more palatable to the House members.

Pelosi told Elizabeth Vargas in a videotaped interview shown on This Week yesterday that now just wanting a public option is, well, OK enough (it's about 1/4 of the way down in the transcript)....

VARGAS: What do you say to your members, when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

PELOSI: Well, first of all, our members -- every one of them -- wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans. They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.

But the American people need it. Why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people, to get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for -- for America's families.

VARGAS: Do you wish, though, that the president had posted his bill before this week, that six months ago it might have been more helpful for you, that maybe six months ago you knew that the public option was something he was going to drop before you fought so hard for it?

PELOSI: Well, we -- we still fight for the -- what the public option will do. Whether it's in the bill or not, its purpose must be recognized and that is to keep the insurance companies honest, to keep them accountable, and to increase competition. And I think in the summit on Thursday it became very clear that what the president was proposing was regulation of the insurance companies.

Left to their own devices, they have done harm to the American people. They need to be regulated. And that is one of the biggest differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Another one, for example, is -- an example of it is ending the denial of -- of coverage to those who have a pre-existing condition. The Democrats have that in their bill; the Republicans do not. (My emphasis)

Instead of taking votes on issues, now, it seems, Dems are trying to say that just talking about issues will make them effective? Against the BHIPs???? (Big Health Insurance Parasites). Oh, yeah, that will cut those premium increases waaaaay down. Surely, sternly worded letter will do so much more.

I think the hat tip goes to Boston Boomer, but now I can't find it in the morning news roundup at The Confluence.

Well, looks like Obama's gonna get his Health Insurance Corporate Bailout on? And his mandate the people must buy those parasite's offer of sucking the financial life out of them? The Corporate Shakedown with Government Muscle?

Correction: Hat tip for Pelosi quote goes to Dakinikat at The Confluence.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"we still fight for the -- what the public option will do. Whether it's in the bill or not, its purpose must be recognized"

The details of the policy? They don't matter.

The potential effectiveness of the policy? Doesn't matter.

The passing of the policy? Doesn't matter.

Paying homage to the "purpose" of the policy. All hail!

Submitted by jawbone on

rule!

Helping actual people? Meh.

Helping Corporate persons? Well, it's what the Supreme Five say should be done.

I mean, with no actual programs, there are no costs. For government.

At least for awhile -- until the problems the program was supposed to address get so bad something absolutely must be done.

The good thing about people having health problems is that, well, after they die, their problems go away, eh?

Submitted by jawbone on

Kaiser Health News and FOX both reporting she said this today in Denver:

...Obama plans to propose a "health care bill that will be 'much smaller' than the House bill but 'big enough' to put the country on a 'path' toward health care reform" within days, FoxNews.com reports. According to a senior administration official, Obama plans to unveil his proposal Wednesday.

"Melody Barnes, a top Obama domestic policy adviser, did not dispute Pelosi's characterization of the new plan as smaller in scope -- and quite possibly in cost -- than either the House or Senate health care bills. … Asked how White House staff is putting the new proposal together, Barnes said they are 'borrowing' from conversations at Thursday's health care summit. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Friday that the White House would work on GOP ideas for health reform over the weekend. Barnes identified two: tort reform and allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines" (3/1

Oh my.

From real health CARE to health insurance reform to...""big enough' to put the country on a 'path' toward health care reform." Well, "care" and "reform" ought to be in skepticism quotes as well.

And selling health insurance across state lines? Oh, really, give us a break, Obama! Race to bottom and increased paperwork, calls to insurers, lack of regulation...what's to think about liking???

Wednesday: Date for New, Improved Obama Mishmash!

Can't make these things up.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Is putting "the country on a 'path' toward health care reform" really politically feasible???

Rome wasn't, in a year or so, put on a path to being potentially built someday, after all!

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

Sometimes I really wish we could rate comments.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I fucking HATE being right about this stuff.

What I do like about the piece is that it quite clearly illustrates that the narrative the conservatives are pushing (small increments are better, let's not do anything because it will cost more money) is categorically false. Clearly, Clinton's reforms and Nixon's reforms (?!) would have saved trillions by now had they passed. A big, sweeping solution is the only answer.

This false narrative, which has already been partially adopted by the Obamacrats (any bill is better than nothing! let's do small amendments! it's too expensive! let's make sure we control the deficit!), can be countered with the points correctly and succinctly made in this article; however, our spin on these points will be quite different.

Obama is so fucking predictable. He has adopted the Republicans' approach, guaranteed to fail for everyone but the super-wealthy.

He hates us. He really, really hates us.

Submitted by gmanedit on

mandates, the equivalent of Delaware incorporation, and no recourse for malpractice.

Is there any way it could get worse?

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

No insurance policy, whether private or public, could cover abortion. Or reproductive services generally.

Submitted by hipparchia on

for my area, none of which i can get [or afford] because of pre-existing conditions, but none of them appear to pay for abortion services already. who needs bart stupak?