While Gibb's apologizes for "inartful" wording, he goes on to reiterate his animosity toward those of us on the left.
Isn't that like punching someone in the face and then saying, "Sorry, I meant to punch you in the stomach."?
I'm not accepting the apology. I'm angrier than ever with this administration. To hell with their "historic" legislation. Did it actually address the problems? Or did it simply continue to serve corporate interests? It wasn't Gibbs who triggered my anger today, though. Read on....
I was talking to a friend today, who is a psychologist. She, and all in her profession in Massachusetts (and probably beyond), just got notice that as of September 1, their reimbursement rates will drop 40%.
Take a moment. Imagine your boss sending you an email which let you know that your paycheck will be cut by 40%. Imagine that they had cut your paycheck 25% the year before. Just like that. No justification. No negotiating. Bam.
My friend is thinking about whether she can afford to continue her practice. She says that many, many psychologists in MA will be going out of business.
So, yes, the "historic" healthcare legislation made sure that there are people getting insurance coverage who didn't have it before. However, it did not address the profiteering of the insurance industry, who sees this extra burden as an excuse to cut costs. So, those newly insured patients may not have practitioners to go to (these kinds of cuts are not limited to psychologists), unless they can pay out-of-pocket. I'm guessing that if they could do that, they would have had insurance in the first place.
I'm empathizing with a friend about her anguish over how she is treated as a commodity and her searing concern for her patients whom she may have to abandon. Then, I get home and hear Gibbs slamming the left for pushing for stronger legislation.
His apology isn't about his animosity towards us. Its about his "inartful" way of expressing it.
He thinks we need to be drug tested? Well, perhaps they need some psychiatric exams. Last I heard, it wasn't so sound to be cutting your nose off to spite your face.
We don't need useless legislation that makes them feel good. We need meaningful legislation.
Dictatorship? Last I heard, we elected a Democratic majority. When did we give up majority rule? When did the party with the least support of the populus get to control the agenda. They had their (8 years of very long) day. The country ousted them and put in our team. Our team that ran on a fairly progressive platform.
Can anyone say, "Bait and switch."?
We expected our populist president to push for a populist agenda. So, when something close to 70% of the populous supports a public option, how is it that our elected representatives can't include that in the health insurance bill?
To date, I've been critical but supportive. I'm willing to accept that the legislative process is challenging and that this administration inherited unprecedented problems. I believe that unprecedented problems require unprecedented boldness, but I get that we can't always have that. Still, it has to be understandable that we will cry out for what we really think is needed. That should be a healthy tension.
They should use us and our ability to rally as a support for their own push for bolder action. Instead, regardless of the words he expresses it with, Gibbs has made one thing clear: this administration holds us in contempt.
The worst thing about this is that it plays into the suspicion that they are just another set of corporatists in office, with no intention to actually challenge corporate control of our society. The "too big to fail" line suggests more: that they like the corporate state we're in. If we look at every bill and figure out why "compromises" were made, why they are so watered down as to be meaningless, we will find a money trail. At the end of the trail are corporations.
So, while I've been critical, but supportive, today I am simply offended and wondering what to do with that.