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

"The cost issue ... legitimate" when 45,000 Americans are dying, but not when bailing out banksters or starting new wars


THE PRESIDENT: I think the cost issue is legitimate*, and whether we can afford it or not, we'll be discussing that. I think that's an entirely legitimate discussion. ...

THE PRESIDENT: The cost issue is legitimate; we're going to address it. ....

1. 45,000 die each year for lack of health care.

2. Health care for profit murdered them.

3. Democrats and career "progressives" are fine with that.

4. Total bankster bailouts: $22 trillion. No problemo!

5. Total Afghan war costs: $3.6 billion per month and counting. No problemo!

Fine word, "legitimate"!

NOTE * More crap from the Crap-Loader-In-Chief. If cost were really "legitimate," then single payer, which saves the country at least $350 billion a year, would be on the table. Of course it isn't, because it's more important to bail the insurance companies out by making failure to buy junk insurance a Federal crime.

UPDATE Here's the complete transcript. Haw.

UPDATE "Message discipline" from a career "progessive":

The president was in command of the facts, competently defended the Democratic position and successfully batted back many of the GOPs misrepresentations.

With some facts carefully removed from the table, some of them by Digs herself, thanks to the single payer news blackout "progressives" imposed.

The fact remains that Republicans and certain conservative Democrats are bad faith players in this process. They have no serious plan to fix the health care system but this summit’s optics may have led people to erroneously believe they do.

Dear Lord. As if [a|the] [strong|robust|triggered]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan] was ever "good faith," instead of a neo-liberal marketing slogan peddled by a policy entrepreneur. Dear Lord.

No votes yet


mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

So funny, my sister actually said to me something along the lines of look, I know health care is Obama's passion in life but shouldn't he be working on jobs right now. It's hysterical because of course Obama didn't have any ambitions at all toward health care, Hillary just pushed him there. He completely lacks passion for the issue, and he is completely unserious about a real solution. He just wants the props for having passed health care.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I don't think Obama gives a crap about jobs either. The only things he's really fought for are Wall Street, extensions of his executive power, and war funding.

Change, baby!

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

Still, health care is hardly his passion. I think he primarily cares about his image and his legacy.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

While the overlords were looking elsewhere, Izvestia econ editor Catherine Rampell tentatively points out that jobs & wages mean health care for some:

Better health doesn’t seem to explain why so many young people forgo health insurance. Rather, income does, according to new survey data released by Gallup....

In fact, last year, healthy young adults were much more likely to have health insurance than their sicker peers, according to Gallup....

Among young adults, 86 percent of those in the top third of the income distribution (people earning $48,000 or more annually) have health insurance. In the middle third (those earning between $24,000 and $48,000), 72 percent have health insurance. And in the bottom third (those making less than $24,000), just 58 percent are on a health plan.

It appears to be affordability, not recklessness (or even rational cost-benefit analysis of health risk), that is driving young people away from insurance policies.

One policy implication of all this is that cheaper health insurance premiums — or, I suppose, across-the-board real wage gains — might encourage more people to buy insurance voluntarily.

(graphs and more info at the link). Of course, Rampell doesn't question attaching health insurance to employment. But if Obama's not going to get anyone health care in any case, might as well go with improving the economy so some might get access accidently.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

It can result in death (starvation, lack of medical care). I always try to get people to talk about philosophical principles of liberalism because we should be talking about healthcare in those terms. How much is a child's life worth? To me its worth more than a billion dollar bonus for some fucking crooked ass bankster. And the thing is, most people will agree with that.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

which is why the argument is never made. It breaks the narrow framework within which we are allowed to discuss economics, which would in turn break the legacy party brainwashing that separates us bottom 98% from each other, which would lead to the bottom 98% recognizing that we are simply serfs to the top 2%.

I mean, no offense to us bloggers, but we're really not that exceptionally smart. There is a REASON these arguments aren't made. I used to think it's because the Democrats were too hapless to make them. Now I realize it's because they want to be part of that elite 2% more than they want to serve their country or their constituents.

It's all on purpose, IMHO.