You'd have to think that the industry could live with the contents of the bill and was either sufficient scared of public pressure or of the opinion that it could find a way to twist the bill into being a net plus.
Is a lot different from what you said earlier:
A conspiracy that just demands that nothing is done needs very few people. Write the public option in the bill and let it die peacefully
And neither one leads to this:
And Obama would have to value the industry's party contributions over a better bill.
It's the assigning of motive to Obama, that he's working for insurance and against people, that's the part I'm questioning. I don't see any evidence in his actions which would indicate this.
If he wanted to maintain the status quo, there were much easier ways. He could pass an unfunded piece of shit bill like the Medicare D one -- a corporate giveaway with bipartisan support -- or he could insist on a 'perfect' bill, say a very liberal single payer one that would be impossible to implement, and let congress take the fallout when they stomped it to death. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
This: You'd have to think that the industry could live with the contents of the bill and was either sufficient scared of public pressure or of the opinion that it could find a way to twist the bill into being a net plus. Is a lot different from what you said earlier: A conspiracy that just demands that nothing is done needs very few people. Write the public option in the bill and let it die peacefully
The claim was that the WH was against the public option and the bill as it is now is basically what they want. I don't see a contradiction. Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.
He could pass an unfunded piece of shit bill like the Medicare D one -- a corporate giveaway with bipartisan support -- or he could insist on a 'perfect' bill, say a very liberal single payer one that would be impossible to implement, and let congress take the fallout when they stomped it to death.
i personally think the latter would have been much more heroic and great leader-y, and ultimately more revealing of the actual shark tank health care situation.
but he doesn't want to risk too much capital in one issue, methinks.
there are others as important, imo, the most compelling to completely change, no revolutionise the corporate ag/food inc. ripoff, as unless this is done there will have to be so much more ill-health care.
the further up the causal river the clean up, the more efficient the change.
if you have a dead pig rotting upstream, you're going to have to do a lot more water filtering down the line.
i'm surprised, as he's so smart, that he doesn't seem to get this.
it's the fastest way to better, more self-aware society, imo, and starting where it should, the betterment of each individuals relationship with their own -and their habitat's- health.
right now all the argument is about what kind of filters are going to be used, and the dead pig rots away.
go to the source, obama! why spill milk with hand and mop with the other? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
