Corrente

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

Americans think HCR doesn't go far enough by two to one

An AP poll lets the cat out of the bag. Although the right, who want to repeal Obamacare because they feel that people shouldn't be forced to buy junk insurance*, get all the coverage in the "news" and the "opinion" columns, Americans who think HCR doesn't do enough outnumber the right by two to one (2 to 1: II to I; 11 to 01).

And that's why Opologists and career "progressives" suck harder then their mother's Hoover ever did:

Two to one. They threw that opportunity away while yammering about incrementalism and the best being the enemy of the good.** They got a smidge of access and some funding, and what they did in exchange was help The Big O bail out the insurance companies by keeping single payer off their front pages and banning its advocates. All this when everybody knows that single payer was the only proven solution on offer. And so what we laughingly call our "health" "care" "system" continues to murder by spreadsheet (and check this chart; it's the only one you need) -- thanks in part to their good offices.

Imagine if that AP poll had "Medicare for All" as an option people could chose! Wouldn't that put us a lot closer to a system that didn't murder people*** for profit? Of course it would. And imagine that the access bloggers and the career "progressives" had made it their priority to change the discourse to include the best policy, instead of going under the bleachers**** with Obama?

Worse, the access bloggers and the career "progressives" successfully created the so-called "public option" as a roach motel for energy on the left, and got people to buy into a mere marketing slogan as if it were an policy proposal, which the PO -- the "Progressive" Orgasm that never comes -- could not have been and never was, and to this to this very day the left side of the Overton Window on health care is occupied by vacuity, instead of a concrete policy proposal that can be shown by evidence and reasoning to work. Well done, all.

I'm not even going to throw in the links, the whole episode is so disgusting. Links on request, readers.

NOTE Hat tip, VastLeft, on "roach motel."

NOTE * A position I agree with, by the way.

NOTE ** Single payer as in Canada is, of course, the centrist solution. Nationalized health care, as in the UK, is the left solution. See how pragmatic single payer supporters are?

NOTE *** Oops. I wrote "people" when I should have written "customers" or, even better, "human resources." Sorry.

NOTE **** I love how Susie got Axelrod's attention. Nevertheless:

"[MADRAK] We're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day,"

Well, why wouldn't Axelrod think that?

UPDATE Here's an interesting data point: Blue Cross is marketing a "single payer" solution in MD. Remember how the access bloggers and career "progressives" told us to trust their savviness, and that "single payer" was too nerdy sounding and could never be sold? Oh well. I guess the corporate marketing weasels at Blue Cross think differently.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by jawbone on

comparing Obama to Hoover is almost unfair to the real Hoover -- who did major and important good things prior to losing his nerve or being influenced by...who/what I'm not sure..when he became president. What did Obama do prior to his presidency? Won some elections, talked a good game and waledk back anything progressive or liberal as a legislator, was given credit for legislation pushed for years by other legislators, and gave a stirring, but muddled middle speech at the '04 Dem Nominating Convention).

Anyway, fookin' brilliant line, to which I add just a wee addition (bcz I never know when to quit):

...Opologists and career "progressives" suck harder then their mother's [and grandmother's] Hoover ever did

I just came across some health CARE reform material, which I put in the recycling but will spend some time to try to find. The polling when Obama was beginning his HCR (High Corporate Revenue) campaign was almost exactly as it ended: Over 60% wanted a single payer program "similar to Medicare." And Obama took single payer off the table -- and pissed off a huge part of the American public right off the bat.

Worse, almost, he deliberately toyed with people's hopes by talking about the undefined public option and worked hard to mislead.

I don't recall the exact numbers (62%?) but it was very close to two to one, with a small number in the don't know column. I believe those against single payer were in the very low 30's.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, viciously stupid DINO prez and ConservaDems.

Why, why, why? We'll never know because Obama does not want to be known, but from his actions it appears he felt a need to suck up to the big corporate players and try to mollify the Repubs. Screwing the people may not have been an objective, just collateral damage...or maybe he wanted to beat down those DFH's and the True Left once and for all. Maybe destroy the Dem Party in the process, altho' it had been on its way to ruin for some years....

Did Dante have a particular circle in hell for leaders who ignored their people's needs and desires? Who threw them under the wagons?

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

the billionaires in the health insurance and hospital industries. But if that is the answer it reveals a terrible small-mindedness in him.

Consider: he could have created true Universal Health Care in the United States. Within three years, the vast majority of US citizens would have loved him for it; certainly nearly all of the middle class. He could have been their hero, their icon. And if he still had unscrupulous inclinations, he could have used their adulation to push for, say, a repeal of the Constitutional Amendment on presidential term limits; he could have acted almost with impunity, at least for a while.

Instead he decided to please the few with money and power, and there's a good chance he'll get voted out of office two years from now as a result. Sure, he'll have a lucrative post-presidential career, with money and unofficial power, but it will have to pale compared to the raw power of the Presidency.

I don't know. I don't know what to do with a person who would give up that kind of power to please his or her rich friends; it's entirely different from my own way of thinking.

beowulf's picture
Submitted by beowulf on

NOTE ** Single payer as in Medicare is, of course, the centrist solution. Nationalized health care, as in the VA is the left solution. See how pragmatic single payer supporters are?

Bonus quote from Reagan White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater from when the Gipper's HHS Secretary Otis Bowen lobbied Congress to expand Medicare benefits (at the expense of private "Medigap" insurers), Dr. Bowen's plan was "consistent with the Reagan philosophy of providing coverage where possible at the lowest possible cost."
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-02-12/n...

What kind of communist is against the Reagan Philosophy?

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

It leads to quality of care at least as high as single-payer at very low relative costs. Italy and Spain have socialized medicine, and they have some of the cheapest and simultaneously best quality health care in the world.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

Just one source for now; there are plenty more, as many of you know.

Britain's socialized medicine system could be cheaper than it is, except Thatcher and the Conservatives introduced 'market reforms' in the 1980's.

Submitted by jawbone on

be able to take their minds off their illness and recovery without having to make all those calls to their insurance company, listen to lovely accents of first line telephone reps trying to explain what things are not covered and why, write the necessary follow-up letters to try to get actual answers, call the state insurance commissions and be told there's only one person who handles complaints, and then stay on hold after hold after hold?