Home › Blogs › RBIII's blog ›

The End Game

Submitted by RBIII on Thu, 03/04/2010 - 21:05
in

How long have we been talking about so-called "Health Care Reform"? There was the almost three year campaign season which ended when millions of Americans failed to see how much of a fraud Obama was and elected him President.  Now we're on year two of endless back and forth on a government takeover of Health Insurance and the Health Care industry (yes, it is a takeover).

The entire time we've been having this debate, there has been a large percentage of liberals / progressives who have flat out said that the reform being proposed wasn't a takeover of Health Care.  Sure, they would like for it to be a takeover but they weren't going to get it. "Oh, no!" they said. "We're not going to have a wonderful system like the British NHS here. Relax."

Nevermind, of course, the times when Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Russ Feingold and others said that the plan was to destroy the Health Insurance industry and pave the way for single payer.

Those single payer zealots would simply give up their lifelong goals and settle for a smaller reform package that we'll all love. Promise.

Well, they lied. The Progressives in power lied and their minions lied. Single payer has been the End Game all along and now we have definitive proof.

But, said one attendee, Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders's measure was similar but doesn't kick in for several years. "He definitely wrote it down," said one member of Kucinich, suggesting that he'd look into it.

The meeting was entirely non-confrontational, said members who were present, but Grijalva did raise the issue of the public option.

"He just said that the public option, something that he has supported along the way, is not something that we can pass. And he emphasized the fact that the decision now is between doing as much as we can do and doing nothing. That's it. He thought the whole foundation thing -- that this is definitely something we could be proud of, something we could build off [of]," said Schakowsky.

Woolsey told Obama that she'd be introducing legislation to create a public option and Obama said he encouraged the effort, according to Schakowsky.

 So let's stop pretending that Single-Payer isn't the goal and that this bill isn't designed to set the table for it, shall we?

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Yes, State's rights are bad, as I'm sure you agree, RBIII...

Submitted by dean2 on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:34.

Oh, boy, is this ever a whopper of a post.  In arguing that some Progressives have a goal of single-payer (duh!), you trash a piece of the legislation that gives States the right to gain waivers from the Federal Government to experiment with other types of health care solutions.  Do you realize that?

Next, of course some Progressives have a goal of single-payer, and no one is denying that.  In fact, many of us talk about it loudly and frequently.  But also some of us realize that, while it may be a goal, we have little expectation that it ever will be attained in the U.S. because we respect the democratic system of government that we've adopted.  Sure, we'll advocate for it, as is our right, but that's rather different than some tin-foil hat conspiracy that there's some secret plot to, um, to use your words, jam single-payer down your throats (and why so many of you evidence an oral fixation is rather curious, btw).

Here's why that is: unlike many conservatives and Republicans, many Progressives are pragmatic and flexible, and we're willing to compromise.  E.g., many of us wanted a single-payer bill, but when that wasn't possible we were willing to compromise for a public option, and when that wasn't possible we were willing to compromise for legislation that looks almost exactly like the plan John Chafee offered as an alternative to the Clinton plan in 1993.  I guess we learned  from the mistake we made then, and the mistake we made earlier by rejecting the Nixon plan (which is even more liberal than the currently proposed legislation).

And that's my point, I guess.  Conservatives are sputtering mad about a health care chimera that demonstrably doesn't exist, and have expended so much verbiage and energy into promoting those mistruths that they've simply backed themselves into a corner and become both unwilling and unable to add any value.  Conservatives have voluntarily given up their ability to compromise (which is how the Founders designed the legislative process to work).  Instead you cling to your misinformed notions while yelling and screaming and generally making the entire process more difficult and the final product less effective than if you'd have been willing to follow the process and make actual improvements to the legislation.

I spent many years working with adults with developmental disabilities, and we had a solid notion of how to negotiate a contentious situation:  take what you can get closest to what you want.  Not only does it seem perfectly reasonable (which it in fact is), it also produces the best possible result when compromise is required.  You'd do well to adopt it.  Your claims that some people or some party is trying to "destroy the country" or that it's Socialist or Fascist are just ridiculous, and the extreme majority of this nation knows that to be true.  You don't like our ideas.  We don't like yours.  Sounds pretty much like typical human existence.  I wish you chose to deal with that in a mature fashion instead of stomping your feet and screaming that if you don't get your way the whole ball of wax is headed for a meltdown or some other inane conspiracy theory.  Sheesh!

to dean2

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 03/16/2010 - 19:52.

Oh, boy, is this ever a whopper of a post.  In arguing that some Progressives have a goal of single-payer (duh!), you trash a piece of the legislation that gives States the right to gain waivers from the Federal Government to experiment with other types of health care solutions.  Do you realize that?

We aren't idiots, you know.  We realize that people like Bernie Sanders propose a stacked deck.  They want states to experiment with single-payer because they want states to ADOPT single-payer.  Do they let states experiment with free-market solutions?  No.  Do they even let states experiment with purchasing insurance across state lines?  No.  But sure, they'll throw a bone to the principle of federalism and let states "experiment" with single-payer.  But it's not out of any commitment to the cause of federalism, that's for damn sure.

But, it's pretty clear you think we are idiots, because you all keep using this same trick over and over again, where you take some liberal idea and attempt to dress it up in conservative clothing.  It is the same when John Kerry talks about cap-and-trade as a "market-based system", expecting conservatives to slobber and drool over the idea of market-based anything.  We don't like free markets just for the sake of free markets; we like free markets because they expand human liberty, and a market in "carbon credits" instead diminishes human liberty.  It is the same when Obama talks about adopting a public option so as to have the government "compete" against insurance companies.  Again the idea from the left is that we conservatives are so brain-dead fixated on the idea of "competition" that we will support anything that has competition in it.  But competition is not fair when not everyone abides by the same set of rules, and that is what would happen when any private entity attempts to compete with government.  Government can tax and borrow its way out of virtually any situation, private firms cannot.  So again liberals attempt to co-opt the rhetoric of conservatives in order to adopt liberal schemes, expecting that we conservatives are just so stupid that we will follow along regardless.  It is the same with Bernie Sanders' sudden conversion to the cause of federalism.  He's no federalist; he is simply attempting to use conservative language to support his socialist schemes.

In other words, you really do think we are drones receiving marching orders from people like Rush Limbaugh.  So, liberals think, all Obama has to do is play the correct tune and we drone-like conservatives will follow Pied Piper Obama instead.

So, dean2, if you are really interested in "changing the tone" as Obama campaigned on doing, then the first step for you is to stop regarding us with such utter contempt, made all the more manifest by the rest of your insulting post.  (Comparing conservatives to mental patients?  Really?)  But I don't expect that you will.  You'll just continue believing we are stupid rubes, and to attempt to reason with us is to lower yourself to a place beneath your station in life.  You really do believe your own stereotypes about liberals being the good pragmatists while conservatives are the nasty "rigid ideologues".  (I guess that includes those "rigid ideologues" that voted in favor of huge expansions in government like Medicare Part D and NCLB?)

Hey Dean2

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 03/17/2010 - 14:48.

http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2010/03/17/ohio-senator-acknowledges-any...

Now, STFU

Healthcare is a Doctor - Patient Relationship, not Government

Submitted by 4speed on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 17:48.

Healthcare does NOT begin with the Government. Congress does NOT fill my gas tank, Exxon does. Health Insurance has Paid my Hospital and Doctor bills, not Government.

I dont' want USPS Managment at my doctor appointment, or the Medicare Expensives of Government run Health Care before I retire on SOCSEC.

READ the Bill, not the Talking points.