-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/significant-setback-that-should-have.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
What is the point of having Democrats in office if they're just going to act like Republicans? And they aren't even doing that! At least Republicans have SPINES, something I have YET to see with any of the Democratic leadership. It's as if they have perfected the whole concept of FAIL.
Can we stop pretending they did, and that they're suffering setbacks? How is it a setback when you hand off health reform to the very people bought by the health insurance industry?
Joe, dude, come on. Obama dumped single payer immediately, and has been trying to dump the public option ever since. Left of the left? Remember? Bueller?
Why this fascination with thinking it's all one big oopsie-doodle goof keeps going is beyond me
We weren't fooled because Obama turned out to be a centrist. We were fooled because he turned out to be a Plutocrat. I don't buy into this "blame Rahm" game at all. This is all Obama. He could silence Rahm whenever he wanted.
===============================
I'm not so sure, that would require leadership and it appears that Obama is lacking all signs of that.
Joe, Joe, Joe. Your words are soft and misleading.
Allow me to translate:
It was a carefully orchestrated decision that gave the appearance of a setback for the benefit of progressives while empowering the Blue Dog platform.
REAL leaders, but alas, we don't.
Howard Dean made an excellent point on Rachel last night.
He said Congress could very easily get a public option, a very STRONG public option, simply by budgeting Medicare to allow people under 65 to enroll. AND - it could be implemented in 2010.
51 votes and no major change in legislation, just a simple budget adjustment.
And by the way, Bush's tax cuts for the hyper rich was passed through the budget, and some of the dems that want 60 votes for a p o actually voted for Bush's tax cuts via budget reconciliation.
At about 3:30 into this clip, Howard Dean explains it clearly. A must see if you missed it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33080841
It's become transparent that he is not the change we have been waiting for.
LOL, he's already a torture apologist and proponent of preventative detention. that's ON THE RECORD.
It has been pretty obvious to me that he is failing the American people and continuing to be a tool for his "corporate master". Guess he is liking the greed, power & money.
What would his mother think?
Shame.
But Obama will get his Karma. It's the law of cause and effect. You reap what you sow.
Dean's star shines much brighter than Obama's and he didn't want Dean around as a reminder of that. Let's convince Dean to run in the primaries against Obama. I have a feeling that there would be an huge surprise in the outcome.
Moore weighs in:
A foregone conclusion.
Though Mr. Vidal and I are from different generations and look upon gay rights differently, including marriage, we do agree on many other topics. He's brilliant and doesn't mince words to spare one's feelings. These are his opinions and if asked properly, he will respond in kind.
"Does anyone care what Americans think? They're the worst-educated people in the First World. They don't have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke."
Sadly true.
The current (and former) wrenching travesties are an appropriate and deserving target for his cantankerous delivery.
If Obama was gay, he'd be a "bottom" and he'd always be on all fours waiting to take it from any Republican, Blue Dog Dem or corporate interest (the same thing?) that wanted to stick it to him. "Thanks, boy. That felt good. You're doing a great job".
man it is going to tough for the democrats in the next couple of years. wait'll they lose the house and the resurgent crazy gop ramps up a fraudulent impeachment case.
Source: Dow Jones Newswire
UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s (UNH) second-quarter earnings more than doubled amid prior-year charges and an increase in revenue, though enrollment continued to decline as U.S. unemployment mounts.
The health insurer, whose earnings topped analysts' expectations, raised the lower end of its 2009 forecast by 10 cents and now expects a profit of $3 to $ 3.15 a share.
Health insurers' profits remain under pressure from rising medical costs and falling enrollment, while expecting payments from their government plans to fall. The industry has been trying to discourage Washington from establishing competing public plans as the health-care debate continues.
UnitedHealth reported a profit of $859 million, or 73 cents a share, up from $ 337 million, or 27 cents a share, a year earlier. Prior-year items including legal settlements cut that period's profit by 40 cents.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-st......
The one hope as it has always been is to merge the bills and get it through reconciliation - The 3 don't have the stones to fillibuster but they will vote against any bill that is a change for the insurance companies - Your living in LALA land if you think Obama Rahmn or anyone else was going to change that.
Hmmm, how did he avoid having the required Democrat operation: having one's spine surgically removed?
The good thing about the health care debate is that Americans are getting a big dose of reality thrown in their faces. The only way to get members of congress back on our side is to buy them back.
I've been thinking lately that someone should start an organization called "Buy 'em Back". Figure out how much the worst offending Democratic members of Congress are getting from the corporations, and raise money to buy them back If a senator is getting $500,000 from the insurance industry, then raise $500,001 to "buy them back". They can have the money if they switch their vote.
Sound crass and cynical? It is, but for many of these people, money is the only thing they understand. They grow comfortable in their jobs and will do anything to keep them.
Save the money and fire them. There are far more deserving and less craven candidates who would understand the job to be the voice of the people and not to cash in.
Short of enforcing a one-term-only rule... And that would only mean they had to get it all real quick.
And if I sound cynical... I'll point out that Diebold/ES&S controls the voting machines for Senators and House members too!.
In point of fact, it is hardly the 'end of discussion,' however much you wish to discourage any challenge to an injudicious solution.
If you're weighing the efficacy between our proposed solutions, paying them off is among the choices most fraught with potential for abuse, not to mention perpetuating and institutionalizing state extortion and further attracting, nay "ringing the veritable dinner bell" for the very element that has driven these parties to populate our government with sycophants and turncoats.
Removing the money from politics is essential for any system to be given the clear opportunity to function.
Along with striving to remove the element and the inequity that corporate funds establish; so would logically follow more and better common-sense legislation such as the very type that would ban e-voting to begin with.
Cynicism is not a sin, dismissive narrow-mindedness on the other hand will only result in your not only pursuing the wrong target but making the entire situation worse with ill-considered remedies.
Now you may end the discussion.
I say, no. But if Obama loses, it will be HIS fault not mine.
The days of "who are you going to vote for" are OVAH!
The leaders we do have are marginalized by establishment Democrats and banished to the fringes of the party along with the base (the left of the left). Too many Dem pols exist solely as go along to get along drones. Thus, we have few real leaders.
Democrats = Republicans = corporate owned tools.
That is why.
Thank you.
The "health care reform" we end up with will be a federal mandate to buy private health insurance which will neither be subject to more stringent regulation, nor premium control, nor will retroactive rescissions, outrageous claim denials or absurd coverage exclusions be eradicated. Those of us who cannot presently afford private health insurance will simply be forced to buy it.
Wait and see.
Hurray!
(But we won't.)
Good concept, but people in those backwater states would never vote for a progressive, at least not in our lifetimes.