Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: Former Obama Staffers Are Standing Up for a Robust Public Option (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can someone explain to me why the (6+ / 0-)

    new health bill should not be enacted, by at least 2011?  If it's good and written in good faith by our congress critters, it seems they would want to see it's works before the next presidential or any election.  If it's bad or not in force before the god awful date of 2013, the voters will turn against the "blue dogs" regardless for their neglect of the public.

    To Congress: "GO BIG" or go home

    by mjd in florida on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:21:26 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  you know... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, PinHole, Vtdblue

      ...I don't mince words so please don't take offense. Social inertia --things in motion tend to stay in motion unless an outside force is applied; things at rest tend to stay immobile. For every action of change there's an equal and opposite reaction to change. This dictates that change is resisted the hardest by those for whom the change affects the most-or by those who stand to lose the most as a result of that change. In short, for lack of better terms, political expediency, compromise, bipartisansip or appeasement is the way the sausage of legislation is made. Like it or not, whomever has the gold makes the rules.

      My honest opinion compels me to believe that the Health Care-Industrialist Complex is going to have to be brought to this public option wedding kicking and screaming all the way to the altar. They would like nothing better if the date of this wedding were postponed indefinitely, however. It's easy to vote for change or for noble men who love the people or for philanthrofic goals for the betterment of society as a whole. It's quite another thing to overcome the innate nature of evil, greedy men motivated by the love of money, who couldn't care any less about the plight of those poor miserable wretches less healthy, gifted, or not fortunate enough to be born into the elite social class.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:22:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand the long delay either. (3+ / 0-)

      2013 will be WAY TOO LATE for tens of thousands of people who are already or soon will be in dire, even life-threatening situations.

      Why did a war, a full-fledged invasion of Iraq and the resulting deaths of unknown tens of thousands of people, take SO MUCH LESS time to implement?  Why is it faster and easier to get to the killing than it is to get to the life-saving?      

      "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

      by CKendall on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:32:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  my guess is that they figure (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida

      it's really bad as they intend to practice it and no matter how pissed off the public is over not getting it before 2013, the public will be a lot more pissed off if they find out the bad news about it both as health care consumers and as taxpayers.

      The bill(s) are about harvesting campaign bucks from Big Insurance and Big PHRMA and large health care providers, not about fixing anything other than the perceived need by the the Forbes 400 families to have the Feds as a revenue collection agent.

      With a 2013 date, they can still "point with pride at 'our' wonderful future national 'health care'" system aka national Romneycare or national Extortioncare for the public and collect bundles of new campaign contributions over a couple or election cycles and hope that reality doesn't quite catch up with the public by Election Day 2014.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:34:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site