Corrente

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

What Susie said

DCblogger's picture

Regarding the 9/11 responders health care bill:

If we had single-payer health care, we wouldn’t need special bills like this.

0
No votes yet

Comments

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That's why I've been rolling my eyes when Facebook friends post things like Jon Stewart's rant about the first-responders bill.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

This was a kind of discouraging day for lefties. Trumpeting all these accomplishments of , as Roger Hodge puts it, the archangel Obama, it's as if the tax cuts for the rich, crappy health care reform, drone attacks, just don't exist. It's all about gays being able to be free to openly go into the military. And lefties are derided for being whiners. All day I heard this on left radio and on blogs.

Submitted by lambert on

So Obama gets a tiny little bump in the polls going out. It couldn't be more cynical or disgusting. The rich get to turn themselves into an aristocracy (next thing you know, titles!) and the trade for that is DADT, unemployment insurance, and START or whatever the acronym is.

It's like the Ds did nothing about the filibuster exactly so they could get to this endgame.

And watch 'em reform it next year, just in time to gut Social Security.

UPDATE I forgot to add, I'm too lazy to find the link right now, but if you read Obama's statement on DADT repeal, he basically frames it as a triumph for militarism.

Now, teh gay can transform human beings into red mist!

Submitted by jm on

President Obama:

As one special operations warfighter said during the Pentagon’s review -- this was one of my favorites -- it echoes the experience of Lloyd Corwin decades earlier: “We have a gay guy in the unit. He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys.” (Laughter.) “No one cared that he was gay.” (Laughter.) And I think that sums up perfectly the situation. (Applause.)

[emphasis is mine]

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

for wage compensation. but yes, Medicare for All would take care of the health care part. It would also lower the cost of auto insurance because accident insurance would not have to pay hospital, only pain and suffering.

Submitted by Fran on

I have always felt, since my first job in a city hospital ER over 40 years ago, that the way health care was paid for has always been an uneven patchwork. Then they always have to pass another bill to cover another gap. The system is so complex that it is inefficient and difficult for the user to navigate.

I feel this is the case in many instances - education, utilities, etc. - where you end up with an uneven patchwork of subsidies when really the solution is to address the system as a whole.

The patchwork serves to cover up the fact that the system essentially does not serve the people. We really just get a few handouts, for which we are supposed to feel grateful.

I recall a news cast on the local news where the story was that people were donating schools supplies for homeless children - and wasn't that nice. Well, of course it was, but my thought was that the real story was - Why are there so many homeless children in our city?!!