Why won't President Obama listen to the health care idea that has the widest public support?

[Better Believe It]

February 1, 2010

Obama Asked For It
Health Care: a Better Idea
By KEVIN ZEESE

Last Friday when President Obama vanquished the entire Republican Caucus in question time in Baltimore he said:

“Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe. If you can show me and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses, ways of reducing people's premiums, covering those who do not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they've got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they're sick, that young people right out of college or as they're entering in the workforce can still get health insurance -- if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I'm game.”

Outside two doctors were arrested for trying to tell the president a better way to really solve America’s health crisis. The president wants a system that doctors confirm works – well this one is supported by 60% of U.S. doctors. He wants a system that nurses will confirm works. This approach is supported by the National Nurses United – the largest nurses union in the country. And, two-thirds of Americans support their better way.

For more than a year advocates of expanding Medicare so it covers all Americans have been trying to tell the president how to fix health care. They have faxed, emailed, telephoned, visited Washington, attended town hall meetings . . . they’ve even gotten arrested protesting their exclusion at hearings. Even the president’s own doctor, David L. Scheiner, has urged him to adopt a national health care program with Medicare for All at its foundation. In every way they know how they have tried to tell the president.

The president claims he will listen to all ideas. Why will he not listen to the idea with the widest public support?

On top of all the good it would do for health care in America, a study published in 2009 found that Medicare for All would spur the economy and create jobs. A national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy.

The health care reform process has fallen apart. It is politically unpopular. It is practically not feasible. It does not confront the urgent health issues facing America.

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese02012010.html

Dr. Flowers Open Letter to President Obama responding to the State of the Union can be read at:

http://www.prosperityagenda.us/node/3271

President Obama saying he supports single payer health care in 2003 can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[Vincardog]

1. Why unrec this?

[DJ13]

6. Some people here have a vested interest in keeping the status quo

I Dont Like to point fingers, 'Cause thats not my style.

[Stinky The Clown]

83. I wish it were at least that high minded.

Many of the unrecs come from the crowd that sees a post like this as a criticism of the man they worship.

[daleanime]

7. Because it's only in our interest...

not in $$$ interest at all. Haven't you noticed that any single payer post sinks like a rock, when was the last time one make it to the front page?

[ananda]

12. I hear that!

SINGLE PAYER: the only way to go!!!

[Enthusiast]

52. They aren't "real" Democrats.

DU is full of these assholes.

[Lorien]

64. I have a feeling that there are some paid DLCers on this board

in addition to the regulars. K&R for every American in need of health CARE, not health insurance!

[MissDeeds]

102. I have thought that for a long time

Some here try to quell discussion if it could be construed as criticism. What are they afraid of?

I agree - K&R for health care

[ooglymoogly]

226. +1

[ooglymoogly]

227. +1

[ooglymoogly]

228. There are more than one interest group that keep

watch on this site with paid goons and thugs.

[defendandprotect]

112. +2 --- !!

[flyarm]

144. +1 ..or that are paid by big pharma or the insurance boys! eom

[tavalon]

152. So that the first post can be

the same as every other OP around. I hate the feature. I won't use it, but I don't know if I've seen many threads that don't have this same complaint as the first or second post.

[SlingBlade]

171. It's the Change-a-holics : We're not supposed to discuss HCR

[liberal N proud]

2. Maybe it is the way people are trying to tell him?

"Outside two doctors were arrested for trying to tell the president a better way to really solve America’s health crisis."

I don't know the details of what transpired in this instance but the President of the United States is not as accessible as we would like. It is unfortunate but has to be this way for his safety.

[Hydra]

22. He knows what we want

It's his job to sell us what we DON'T want. That's why people get arrested for telling him what we really want, and his administration pretends we don't say anything.

It's the price of capitialism. If it's not massively profitable(and kills people), it's not "feasable."

[hootinholler]

23. ROFLMAO!

What would you suggest? Every means I can think of has been tried to get this message to the President over the last year, from faxes, to protest to civil disobedience.

-Hoot

[Enthusiast]

53. Wrong!

He knows. And it has nothing to do with how people are telling him. Health care reform could be wildly popular, and he knows it. But it would be unpopular with the insurance industry and that is who counts.

[liberal N proud]

65. If he knows

then why do people have to get arrested trying to tell him?

[Marr]

122. The same reason people got arrested telling Bush it was wrong to invade Iraq.

C'mon, the coy thing doesn't translate well through type.

[flyarm]

145. +10,000!!!!!!!!!!

[tavalon]

153. Because he needs plausible deniability,

therefore no one who might say different is allowed to get near him. That way he doesn't have to lie when he says he hasn't heard.

[pecwae]

172. Bingo!

Being able to say they /she is/was unaware of the wants/needs of the constituents makes a politician look to be innocent.

Aides are there to shield him from those pesky letters/email/calls. However, I don't know how there could be a chance that the WH, to include the POTUS himself, isn't aware of the public opinion on this.

[Enthusiast]

156. Because many of us are frustrated

by the fact he won't acknowledge that the public option is hugely popular with the American people. We know he is playing dumb.

The American people are sick of the abuses by the insurance industry. They know full well the only viable way to rein in these abuses is to enact a public option.

He knows. Don't give me that. I know, you're like me, you're growing tired of disappointment with President Obama. We all are.

[Toasterlad]

79. So You Can Carry a Machine Gun To His Appearances, But You Can't Talk To Him About Health Care?

Maybe you need to pay a little more attention.

[liberal N proud]

86. Where in the FUCK did I mention a machine gun?

[Toasterlad]

87. You Didn't. The Dude Who CARRIED A MACHINE GUN TO ONE OF HIS APPEARANCES Did.

Here's what YOU said:

"I don't know the details of what transpired in this instance but the President of the United States is not as accessible as we would like. It is unfortunate but has to be this way for his safety."

Now, the two presumably unarmed doctors were arrested, while the MAN WITH THE MACHINE GUN was allowed to proudly display his anti-Obama sign without being manhandled by the police. Which either suggests that you believe that two doctors who want to talk to Obama about health care are more dangerous than a man with a machine gun, or you don't particularly believe that the two doctors were any kind of threat, and you're just making excuses for Obama.

[benEzra]

219. That guy was carrying an unloaded, non-automatic civilian rifle,

not a machinegun, and he wasn't at Obama's event, he was blocks away at a staged "protest" posing for gullible reporters with the most popular civilian centerfire rifle in America.

The intent was, of course, to hijack the media coverage away from Obama's message, and divert it toward the ZOMG SCAWWY GUNZ direction, which succeeded all too well thanks to MSM gullibility.

[cabluedem]

161. Since when are people allowed to carry guns near the president. nt

[Gecko6400]

167. Just about

anytime he appears outside in public in a state that has open or canceled carry laws, which are most states. That's why the guy that carried the semi-auto rifle, mentioned above was perfectly legal in doing so.

I would not try to have a face-to-face with the President while armed.

[benEzra]

220. Nope. The Secret Service secured zone is considered Federal property

for the purposes of the law. Agree or disagree with it, that's the way it is. That's why the guy with the carbine wasn't AT the Obama event, he was blocks away at his own little staged media event.

[cabluedem]

221. Same with post offices. We had a CCW holder arrested at the PO. Its posted on the wall. No guns ...

allowed on federal property.

[dflprincess]

113. You can call the White House and leave an opinon

or send a message through the whitehouse.gov website. I think a lot of us hit the site (again) after he made his comment about letting him know if there was a better way to do HCR.

Though, after all these months, it's becoming pretty apparent that those comments are most likely ignored, but it's better than not doing anything.

[eagertolearn]

138. I heard they even had Mad as Hell Doctors blocked so no more letters for

single payer would keep coming in. This really upses me that he has not even considered this.

[flyarm]

147. because they are all on the take $$$$$$$$$$!! And at the Ritz In Miami with the big boys..

http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/01/senate-democrats-spend-the-weekend-with-fat-cat-lobbyists-at-the-miami-beach-ritz/

Senate Democrats Spend the Weekend with “Fat Cat” Lobbyists at the Miami Beach Ritz

By: Blue Texan Monday February 1, 2010 10:30 am

Where'd you spend the weekend?

The country is still reeling from the worst recession in 70 years, with millions of Americans unable to find work. People are drowning in bills and working more hours for less pay. All that is stoking is growing populist anger about the relationship between corporate America and government and an increasing cynicism that the whole game is rigged.

Cue the braindead DSCC.

Twelve Democratic Senators spent last weekend in Miami Beach raising money from top lobbyists for oil, drug, and other corporate interests that they often decry, according to a guest list for the event obtained by POLITICO.

The guest list for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s “winter retreat” at the Ritz Carlton South Beach Resort doesn’t include the price tag for attendance, but the maximum contribution to the committee, typical for such events, is $30,000. There, to participate in “informal conversations” and other meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez; Michigan’s Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; freshmen Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska; and even left-leaning Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (sounds like they're all from freezing states!)

Heckuva job, Menendez. Keep writing those sternly-worded press releases.

“In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies — or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people’s interests ahead of the special interests,” Menendez said in a press release last Wednesday.

xxxxsnip:

Here’s a little free advice, Bob. If you want to appear to be sticking it to the “fat cats,” you probably shouldn’t be caught wining and dining them at the Ritz Fucking Carlton.

[JetCityLiberal]

214. Thanks for this info flyarm

"Here’s a little free advice, Bob. If you want to appear to be sticking it to the “fat cats,” you probably shouldn’t be caught wining and dining them at the Ritz Fucking Carlton."

flyarm gets it.

Paul

[Little Star]

166. If true that is not good.

[Jefferson23]

205. If you have a link to that story I would appreciate it !

This has been the one domestic issue under Obama that has been the most frustrating to watch, I thought he was going to fight like hell for Americans.

Are the Dems in the house even going to repeal the federal antitrust exemption for health insurers?

I am so disgusted, words fail.

[eagertolearn]

212. I will call the person who just told us about this last week.

He was involved on the tour with Mad as Hell Doctors and it had to do with their web site and people contacting the white house through their web site and the white house blocked them so people had to cut and paste and send from their own e-mail!

[Jefferson23]

215. Thank you, very thoughtful of you and appreciated.

[grahamhgreen]

115. Bullcrap - we've been lobbying him since day 1 and he asked for better ideas.

[SlingBlade]

173. Yep. That's O'Bull Shit

How many Health Care lobbyist have been arrested thus far ?

Crickets !
Damnable Crickets, There all over the place now :)

[Marr]

120. Oh, right-- he just doesn't know.

That's a good one.

[GinaMaria]

128. There are videos on this site

that show what happened. Obama's own physician was dis invited from the white house when he spoke up for single payer. Dr. Flowers mentions it in one of the videos. She has tried mailing, emailing and dropping off packets of information with security. When someone doesn't want to hear about SP and that someone is POTUS, then his ears will not be polluted with the noise of the public. SP has been cut out from the start. What we have now is not a compromised bill. What we have now is the bill Orahma wanted all along.

[Ken Burch]

154. Oh, for the love of God....

I think the Secret Service and Homeland Security could fairly assume that people on THIS side of the spectrum aren't going to kill the prez.

:eyes:

[eagertolearn]

170. I think it was because it was the republican meeting and they don't want that.

They were pretty harmless looking protestors.

[ooglymoogly]

210. Yeah I bet those docs had gatling guns under their scrubs.

and of course they were not pugs who have exclusive access to the Prez's ear.

[Ken Burch]

218. Or maybe it was THESE Doctors.

[ooglymoogly]

225. Ha, ha; Nostalgic memories.

[Echo In Light]

3. US Reps don't serve The People, but their corp pay masters

[flyarm]

148. Yep and they are wineing and dining in Miami at the Ritz with big pharma and the Insurance boys ..

http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/01/senate-democrats-spend-the-weekend-with-fat-cat-lobbyists-at-the-miami-beach-ritz/


Senate Democrats Spend the Weekend with “Fat Cat” Lobbyists at the Miami Beach Ritz

DSCC..

snip:

Twelve Democratic Senators spent last weekend in Miami Beach raising money from top lobbyists for oil, drug, and other corporate interests that they often decry, according to a guest list for the event obtained by POLITICO.

The guest list for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s “winter retreat” at the Ritz Carlton South Beach Resort doesn’t include the price tag for attendance, but the maximum contribution to the committee, typical for such events, is $30,000. There, to participate in “informal conversations” and other meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez; Michigan’s Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; freshmen Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska; and even left-leaning Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (sounds like they're all from freezing states!)

[midnight]

164. Sounds like they are getting a jump start on unlimited corporate donation ruling.

[flyarm]

183. I call it "bribery" at the cost to tax payers!

[polichick]

4. Maybe because he's not into rocking the status quo boat any more than he has to...

Just called my Congressman and said that it's not enough to support the public option. With Obama's new challenge, it's time to fight for it and to insist that single payer be submitted to the CBO.

imo the only explanation is that the prez and Dems are looking out for the insurance industry and big pharma.

[mochajava666]

11. Absolutely. That is the only explanation.

Both parties serve the same corporate masters.

[CTyankee]

27. What I have read says that the Dems on Cap. Hill got together a while back

and agreed not to take out the private insurance industry. So right there single option was simply not looked at. They knew it would wipe out an entire industry in this country and weren't about to do that. I'm sure most all of them knew that the private companies couldn't compete pricewise and would eventually be put out of business.

So that's the sad, sad tale right there. I believe it.

We were defeated before we even got started...

[polichick]

30. imo it would be fine to wipe out that industry, and retrain for green jobs...

...that would receive government investment dollars.

[CTyankee]

44. Oh, me too! But evidently they thought it was too big a jolt.

And, of course, so many our Cong. Dems are receiving $$$ from the industry.

Signed, sealed, delivered...no single payer. Not here, no way, no sireee.

[polichick]

47. Yep - that's the truth. nt

[vssmith]

99. Didn't bother them to take out every other industry with NAFTA

Out of the country anyway.

[Jefferson23]

216. You're absolutely right!

[Lorien]

66. And yet the irony is that if Dems PASSED universal single payer they would pretty much

be assured majority status for a very long time to come.

[polichick]

72. True - they're so afraid to lose the support of corporations, they don't even...

...consider what it would mean to have the American people on their side.

[GinaMaria]

130. That's because money talks and

the American people are only getting poorer

[rudy23]

193. Maybe the corporations are directly threatening some Congresscritters

Wouldn't be that far fetched. It's a multi-billion dollar industry trying to protect itself. Why wouldn't they break out their biggest guns?

[fascisthunter]

203. and That's because they take their base for granted

by assuming we all will vote for the lesser of two evils.

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

[pleah]

8. K&R

[gcomeau]

9. Because he can't freaking PASS it.

Has anyone been watching the goddamn Senate for the last fucking year? We can barely acheive a cloture vote on what they did pass. Propose single payer and you don't even get to 50. EVERY concervative democratic Senator would come out against it instantly and unequivocably, and I don't think it's even necessary to mention what the odds of any GOP defections on that vote would be. Could we PLEASE stop whining about the fact that Obama isn't wasting time trying to pursue our impossible to acheive fucking wishlist option? I want single payer too, but it CAN NOT HAPPEN in the current political climate. Period. End of sentence. Let it go and focus on something productive already.

[Better Believe It]

19. So the only viable alternative we have is surrender to Republicans?

I don't think so.

50 votes plus a tie breaker cast by Vice-President Biden would get the job done.

Of course, one would need the backing of President Obama in order to get those 50 votes.

Republican filibuster can't be broken?

Well, one would have to actually see a genuine Republican filibuster to make that claim.

Make them filibuster!

Don't let some Republican while leaving the Senate chamber hand Senator Reid a mere piece of paper claiming to be filibustering!

Senator Reid under Senate Rule 22 can force a real filibuster.

And Democrat Senators can withdraw their "two track" Senate debate procedure.

And the Democrats can threaten to use (and mean it) the Republicans "Constitutional Option" which they used so effectively against Democrats in 2005.

The one remaining option is the one many Democrats have used so effectively.

Surrender to Republicans.

[gcomeau]

31. No, the only viable option we have is, by definition...

TO PASS WHAT IS VIABLE

Viability, in the Senate, being defined as garnering sufficient votes to pass.

And the Republicans wouldn't HAVE to filibuster a Single Payer bill. They'd let it go to vote where it would be immediately defeated, and then they'd spend the next year pointing at that as evidence that not even Democrats wanted such a "crazy radical left wing socialist program" and using it to villify the idea as equivalent to outright communism or something for the next 20 years.

I have no problem whatsoever with trying to force Republicans to filibuster health reform on the floor if it can be done... but to do that you AT LEAST need a health care proposal that can get 50 freaking votes and Single Payer is NOT that proposal. Anyone who thinks it is has been hiding under a rock all year.

[Better Believe It]

35. So how many Democrats do you think are needed in the Senate to accomplish anything. Is 100 enough?

Seriously.

How many Democrats do you think would need to be elected to the Senate in order to achieve Medicare for All?

Give me a number.

If the Republicans can run the Senate with only 41 members I suppose they could do it with only 10 because of "Democratic" Senators who love working with them.

It looks like the grand political strategy of compromise, bi-partisanship, capitulation and surrender to Republicans has proven to be less than worthless.

It sucks!

It will lead to huge Republicans gains in Congress in 2010 and control of Congress and the White House in 2012 because it will appear to most voters that Democrats can't govern and lead effectively.

But you want to continue down that same road!

[gcomeau]

38. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?

It has nothing to fucking do with "how many Democrats". It has to do with HOW MANY FUCKING VOTES.

And someone having a goddamn "(D)" next to their name doesn't mean an automatic vote for anything we want them to pass, whether you like it or not. Welcome to this thing we call the real world.

[Better Believe It]

42. It's hard to pass Medicare for All or the public option when President Obama is opposed to both!

Do you think Medicare for All or a public option might do better if President Obama was for it instead of making a back door deal with the insurance industry to exclude Medicare for All and the public option?

[cabluedem]

162. The best money Big Health Ins. ever spent on a candidate. nt

[gratefultobelib]

20. Thanks!!!!!

[Edweird]

33. Nonsense. Single Payer is widely supported. This RW bullshit they are jamming us with IS NOT.

[gcomeau]

36. Yes! Nonsense! Perfect description of what you just posted.

I don't give a shit if its widely supported, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DAMN SENATE VOTES.


"But, but, but, but... lots of people WANT it to have them" doesn't actually make any difference here. Senate representation isn't proportional to population. 60% of the public wanting something nationally doesn't mean JACK SQUAT in the Senate if the 40% who don't want it are concentrated in low population states that provide too large a proportion of the Senators.

Maybe (hypothetically speaking, for the purposes of illustration) 100% of Californians want it. That's over 10% of the national population. But that's only 4% of the Senate votes.

In the meantime let's say 100% of Montanans don't want it. They're less than 0.3% of the population... but guess what? 4% of the damn Senate.

How the hell do people who spend as much time discussing political issues as the denizens of this forum do not understand how their own damn government actually works?

[Better Believe It]

37. Sorry. I can't accept the politics of bi-partisanship, compromise and capitulation to Republicans

no matter how much you try to justify and sugarcoat it.

You can try and put lipstick on that white flag of surrender, but it's still a surrender flag to our enemies.

[gcomeau]

39. In other words...

"Sorry, I find reality distasteful so refuse to acknowlege it".

Good luck with that.

[Spazito]

41. Well said!

"Sorry, I find reality distasteful so refuse to acknowlege it"

You have encapsulated the attitude of the poster responsible for the OP on any issue related to health care/insurance reform.

I salute you for trying to puncture the delusional bubble of the poster, many have tried but have yet to succeed, alas. I hope you can get through!

[Better Believe It]

43. Good luck with your compromising bi-partisanship. How's that strategy working out for you?

If current trends continue this might become known as a "do nothing" Congress.

[gcomeau]

63. I said nothing about ANY vote getting strategy. What posts are you reading? -nt

[Codeine]

45. You failed high school Civics badly, didn't you? nt

[Better Believe It]

48. I knew and understood a lot more about history and politics than the high school "civics" teachers.

The government approved textbooks really didn't teach us much about real politics and real history.

You need to read Zinn and other progressive writers if you want to understand politics.

It seems this might be virgin territory for you.

[Edweird]

80. 1994.

[JoeyT]

97. You act as if the president lacks any power beyond saying "Please".

Had he threatened to veto anything that would've helped the states that were balking, I guarantee you they'd have gotten in line to vote for anything he told them to. Doing so would've also made him a hero. Instead the country thinks (Rightly so) that he and the Dems have no spine. Again.

Edited to add: I'm referring to the public option. Not single payer. I don't think the majority ever actually supported single payer. They sure as hell supported a strong public option, though.

[Lorien]

68. +1 nt

[grahamhgreen]

114. All he has to do is ask for a million people to march in DC for single-payer.

[Kalun D]

121. He didn't even try

because the corporate owners don't want him to.

He's capable as proven by the way he decisively rammed defense spending through congress.

[Marr]

131. Here's my problem with that explanation:

It's used to counter the claim that this legislation wasn't advanced because the insurance industry heavily influences the Senate on this issue. 'Obama would've pushed for Single Payer if he could', the argument goes, 'but the Senate would never go against the insurance industry and pass it'.

Well, if we can accept that the Senate is heavily influenced by the insurance industry, why can't the same go for the president? It's not so much that he couldn't pass it, it's that he didn't want to fight his big corporate donors.

Personally, I think Single Payer *could* have been passed by a president as popular as Obama was when he came into office. I definitely think the Senate could've been made to support a Public Option of some sort. The Senate is not a collection of inanimate objects with their votes hardwired into them. Obama could've put a lot of public pressure on his opponents, had he chosen to really fight for it. He didn't.

[Greyhound]

135. That's it, right there.

:thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

10. Maybe because he knows we can't get 50 Dems in the Senate to support a Public Option.

let alone Medicare for All.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/1/832409/-Rep.-Chris-Van-Hollen-(video):-Unlikely-50-Senate-votes-for-Public-Option

[Better Believe It]

26. Did Obama use Rham "Sharp Elbows" Emanuel in a big battle for a public option?

Get serious.

President Obama didn't want a strong public option. A public option wasn't included in the back door deal he made with the health insurance industry.

The public doesn't support the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act so I hope, along with a clear majority of people, that this Senate bill does wind up in the dumpster.

[dflprincess]

116. No. He used Rahm to try and get the progressives to fall in line

with the scam they're trying to foist on us.

Obama is way too smart to have started bargaining from what should have been the compromise, but that's exactly what he did when he refused to even discuss single payer (so much for "listening to all sides".) It's pretty apparent the DLCers in the White House are getting the insurance bailout bill they wanted all along.

[Kalun D]

125. Amen LOLZ!

ObamaRahma

because your right hand man defines who you are.

[backtomn]

206. Take a look....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded.html

[Faryn Balyncd]

29. Should Lincoln have supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 because the Senate wasn't ready for ema

....emancipation?

[berni_mccoy]

49. Funny think about Donkeys...

They don't do what you tell them too... they do what they want.

That's true of many of the DINOs in the Senate.

[MessiahRp]

191. Well as Al Sharpton put it... Sometimes you need to SLAP the donkey...

And I'm guessing a pretty big slap is coming their way in November.

Rp

[quiet.american]

73. As an African-American, I don't like this comparison. Do we want another civil war, too?

Because that's what it came to.

Comparing healthcare reform to the civil war/emancipation is offensive to me. I can't tell you exactly why, but it is. It registers as just a step above the teabaggers holding up the photo of Holocaust victims as their symbol of healthcare reform.

[Faryn Balyncd]

100. I guess the overall question is: Does the government propping up bad institutions help or hurt? &..

...does such propping up of bad institutions sometimes make the eventual solution even more difficult & traumatic?


Perhaps I could have chosen a better example, as I did not intend to imply equivalency.


(I'll have to do some thinking to find a good example.)


Thanks for sharing.




:)

[Better Believe It]

50. Maybe because of the deal he made with the health insurance industry to oppose a public option.

Did you consider that? Are you even aware of that fact?

Follow the news! And this is old news!

You seem to be really that out of touch with Washington politics.

[berni_mccoy]

51. Now you're just making shit up. not surprised by it though.

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. Well, in order to get to the President, you gotta go through his chief of staff

And the chief of staff (and his brother) are known advocates of complete privatization of anything related to health care, including Medicare.

So anybody advocating something contrary to that (i.e. a health care system proven to work in damn near every other so called civilized nation on the planet) doesn't get through the Emanuel Brothers Inc. firewall.

[berni_mccoy]

14. You're so predictable. RAHM RAHM RAHM! How about the Dems in the Senate?

There aren't 50 Dems in the Senate to support a Public Option, let alone Medicare for All.

No matter how much foot stomping Obama does, those guys aren't going to pass it.

[bvar22]

25. "No matter how much foot stomping Obama does,"...LOL

I haven't seen any finger tapping, much less "foot stomping" in support of a Public Option (except on the campaign trail).

As far as the obstructionist Democratic Senators, Make them an offer they can't refuse.
Obama came out of Chicago, fer gawds sake. He KNOWS how to play hardball.
The Blue Dogs/DLC have PROVEN they can be bought....so BUY them.

There are 37 Universal Health Care Programs already up and running in the developed World, and two in the United States. ALL of them are better and cheaper than Obama's "Uniquely American Solution".
Of course, Obama would have to have to be working for the benefit of the American People before adopting ANY of these programs.

"I did not campaign on a Public Option".

[Kalun D]

126. Compare

compare how hard Obama fought for the defense bill, to how hard he fought for health care

there's no comparison

[L0oniX]

15. LOL ...you actually believe he and they represent us? BWAHAHAHAH ...FOOLS!

You actually believe he cares? heheh ...doh! Hey ya know what ...let me know when you all are ready to go out on the march and take back our country.

After the 5 assholes decided the corps can control politics, I don't believe in the system or the US people anymore. Good luck with your fantasy.

[Kalun D]

123. ^^^^^^++++++++ 10

Agree, this country has been sold to the highest bidder. The workers are just pawns.

[Marr]

132. I couldn't agree more.

I don't think this system was ever designed to represent the general populace, but the few small levers that were in place for them were finally removed a couple of weeks ago.

Arguing about politics and politicians has become pure mental masturbation at this point.

[winyanstaz]

16. maybe because he really wants to keep it the same...

because he sure isnt fighting for public option.
I think we are still being played.

[sandnsea]

17. A public option has wide support, not single payer

Speaking of listening.

[Green_Lantern]

24. exactly...

Single-payer doesn't seem to have much support when people see how much it'd cost here. Trillions.

[t0dd]

40. Please don't mislead others with your abundant cluelessness.

A national single payer system would save more than $400 billion per year. People that are against it are brainwashed. They have never seen evidence of how effective such a system is in other prosperous nations that put their citizens ahead of profits.

Besides the moral reasons (that it would provide comprehensive coverage for all Americans), it makes great economic sense too. Private (for-profit) insurance has nearly a 30% overhead. We already pay double per capital than any other industrialized nation. Try to do a little research before you make a wild, unfounded assertion that single payer would cost more than our current cruel, profit-driven system.

[Green_Lantern]

54. that doesn't make sense...

We spend $450 billion on Medicare in 2010, how would putting more people on it save money in the budget? Expanding it within our current system would add trillions to the budget.

It works in other nations because their costs were already lower an ous are currently sky high. We need to control costs before we just spend this kind of money.

I definitely support a public option to add competition and lower costs but there's no evidence that just expanding Medicare would decrease costs.

Medicare is non-profit and we still spend almost $460 billion on it. Also what about people who want to keep their current coverage?

[Better Believe It]

89. The hundreds of billions now going to insurance companies would go into the Medicare pot.

[Green_Lantern]

184. wouldn't people still be able to keep private

Insurance if they wanted like they currently do in Medicare?

[Better Believe It]

222. If you wanted to pay much higher insurance premiums in a smaller market I suppose you could.

[Enthusiast]

56. Single payer could bring our

costs comparable to what other country's are paying. You say trillions. Yes, right trillions, but less than we pay now with the status quo. There is much profit in today's system. There should be zero profit in health care. It should be a "break even" deal all the way.

[Green_Lantern]

59. should perhaps...

But within our current system Medicare expansion would still be paying for high cost we pay for health care. Health providers would still be making money as they do now with Medicare.

[GinaMaria]

133. Yes but you remove an entire industry that siphons off

health care dollars and limits health care resources to pay obscene bonuses etc. That money back in the system means that the people who actually impact patient outcomes are paid for their services. There would still be more health care dollars left over from removing the parasites who do not give back in value any where near what they take in health care dollars. Imagine if savings were passed on to the people who carry the plan, be it Medicare or something else.

[Enthusiast]

157. Thank you GinaMaria

You said it so much better than I did.

[Green_Lantern]

178. I don't disagree with that outcome...

I just don't agree simply expanding Medicare will reduce costs or not involve adding $2 trillion in spending to the budget.

Also wouldn't private insurance still exist for people who wanted to keep it?

[GinaMaria]

194. Of course private insurance would still exist

This is about offering people more choice. There's no freedom if you don't have a choice. Competition is a good thing.

[slipslidingaway]

137. SP has support, the public option had support in polls because ...

the idea was marketed to people for over a year as being "like Medicare."


Some polls from 2003 to 2009
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6365319&mesg_id=6365319

The Power of the Word Medicare -

When the word Medicare is used in the various polls, the number of people who favor the plan automatically jumps, it makes no difference if the question relates to the public option or a national insurance system such as single-payer...the word "Medicare" has a favorable connotation.

The Kaiser Health Tracking poll is one of the few recent polls that asks about a single-payer plan or government run insurance plan for all, many of the polls leave SP out altogether and that includes the widely cited poll from June saying that 72% of people want a public option.

What Kaiser did, at times, was half sample certain questions.

For instance if they were sampling 1200 people, they would ask about a public plan "like Medicare" to only half of the people. The other half they would leave out the word "Medicare" and the support for a public plan, or single-payer, would drop....

[Hepburn]

18. Because the Party of NO, with say....

...NO!

[Green_Lantern]

21. public option sure but not Medicare for all...

For one thing some people have insurance they like already and they may not want Medicare. Whereas the public option allowed a choice.

Secondly the cost of this would be too high. We already are going to be spending $450 billion on Medicare in 2010 and expanding it would have to be over a trillion dollars.

I can't imagine this would be very popular.

[GinaMaria]

134. I think Medicare for all

means Medicare for anyone who wants or needs it. You wouldn't eliminate private insurance. There will still be people who will want to keep what they have. A medicare for all option is just that; an option. That translates to competition and that means competitive pricing for you. There are countries that have a national plan the works along side private insurance. People have choices, but they are never left desperate.

[eagertolearn]

139. Our private insurance is going up so much each year. Who will be able to afford it.

Those who think they are safe because they have government jobs i've got news for you all those benefits are shrinking and it won't be long that they will have you actually pay for a big part of this. There is no stability. If there was a medicare for all we would buy it in a heart beat!

[Green_Lantern]

187. well I do support some sort of govt. insurance option..

But not Medicare where the govt. pays for everything, you'd still have to pay some sort of premium.

[GinaMaria]

195. Medicare is not 'free'

We all pay for the benefit we will receive when we retire.

[Green_Lantern]

199. I know it's not free...

Payroll taxes will collect over $900 billion in revenue in 2010.

[Faryn Balyncd]

28. & why is he pushing a No-Public-Option MANDATE that only 34% think is "better than passing nothing"?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2009/just_34_say_passing_health_care_bill_is_better_than_passing_nothing


& when 82% of the former (2008) Obama voters who voted for Brown in 2010 SUPPORT A PUBLIC OPTION (and voted for a Senate candidate who ran on defeating the current bill)?


http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults



Passing a No-Public-Option MANDATE that is opposed by the great majority of voters will DESTROY the Democratic Party.



:kick:



If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform...."

- Howard Dean

[Vidar]

32. Medicare for All won't make money for Obama's corporate chums.

[Green_Lantern]

34. how would we pay for it?

It'd cost at least a $1 trillion a year. 50% of the budget.

[t0dd]

46. A payroll tax on everyone.

The taxes would replace premiums, and in most cases be lower than the premiums people are paying now for junk insurance.

[Green_Lantern]

55. who would agree to that?

You couldn't just promise people that health care costs will decrease if they just accept payroll tax increases. They'd say to lower the costs first.

[Enthusiast]

57. Ed Zackery!

When people are polled, they say they are willing to be taxed to pay for it. Considering how our taxes are being wasted now single payer is a great deal.

[Green_Lantern]

62. which people say that?

Who said they want to have their taxes increased to expand Medicare? The Mass. voters?

[Enthusiast]

158. A majority of citizens

would be willing to pay more in taxes if we could have a single payer European/Canadian style system.

This was a poll, a while back. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the sentiments of the country. Besides, imagine how they would embrace a single payer option if they were allowed to hear more about it.

Information about single payer has been suppressed by insurance industry money. Hey, the insurance industry sucks. Are you an employee?

[Green_Lantern]

180. the poll may have showed...

Americans supported a govt. insurance option but I've seen nothing that shows Americans demanding higher payroll taxes to reform health care.

[Enthusiast]

182. Americans didn't "demand"

higher payroll taxes to pay for it. They said "They would be willing to pay more".

And this is a fact. But facts don't sit well with champions of the status quo.

[Green_Lantern]

192. well show me the poll...

What does "willing to pay more" mean. I'm not a champion of the status quo.

[Green_Lantern]

181. not an insurance employee...

I'm a person who can't afford higher insurance premiums or higher payroll taxes.

[Enthusiast]

185. They will be lower.

Remove the profit and only administrative costs remain. And medicare is even administered at a far lower rate than private insurance.

Private insurance serves absolutely no purpose other then to separate us from our money and give NOTHING in return. They don't even stick a thermometer up your butt to take your temperature.

What possible justification is there for insurance industry largess? They provide ZERO care! ZERO!

[Green_Lantern]

190. I agree with you...

The insurance industry is insane and we need reform but I just don't think expanding Medicare should be the first step.

[Raineyb]

58. I don't know how do we pay for these wars?

There always seems to be money for that but to keep people alive? Not so much.

[Green_Lantern]

60. we don't pay for them..

We just keep running up the deficit, but that doesn't mean we add another $2 trillion in spending. Let's not mimic the GOP.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

217. It does not matter. You HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE, in the end - you have no choice!

It's a pay-or-die scenario.

Either some people in suits get to siphon off some or all of the money you need for your surgery, or we eliminate them and spend more of the money on peoples health.

[Uncle Joe]

61. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[johnaries]

67. Because it won't pass.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/08/05-8

"Single-payer bills have been introduced in Congress repeatedly over the past 60 years - starting with the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill in the 1940s, and including the Kennedy-Griffiths bill of the 1970s and the Wellstone, McDermott and Russo bills of the 1990s - but none has ever reached the floor of the House or Senate."

[Lorien]

69. Has it ever had greater public supprt than now?

Things have gotten so bad that people are more than ready for it. Any politician who would vote for it would almost be guaranteed another term, and the opposite would go for those who voted against. I suspect they fear most for their lobbying positions post congress, though.

[johnaries]

74. NO, and as a result HR676 got further than any previous bill did.

But it still wasn't enough. Google HR 676 to find out what's going on, and what we're up against. We couldn't even get a watered down PO through. But there are plenty of other important things in the current bill that need to be passed if we can't get single-payer.

[quiet.american]

76. Let's face it, the only support that matters is within the House and Senate chambers.

If it can't get the 60 votes, it's not viable in the way that these bills are being passed. Look at the gut-wrenching effort throughout the Senate that had to be put into just getting what's on the table now passed. In spite of what would seem to make sense, that any politician that votes for the public option would get a second term, that's just not true. The conservative Democrats are in states where "teh stupid" fever is rampant and are on the edge of being voted out just for voting for what has passed.

How do we get the usual suspects -- Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu and Lincoln to vote for it. That is the $64,000 Question.

[seeinfweggos]

70. great idea. got the senate votes? lieberfuck change his mind? nt

[Better Believe It]

75. Don't need Leiberman. 50 votes plus Vice-President Biden tie breaker will pass it.

[seeinfweggos]

77. how do you figure?

[Better Believe It]

84. Because that's what the Senate rules call for in order to pass legislation.

60 votes are not required to pass legislation as the corporate media, Republicans and others would like you to believe.

[seeinfweggos]

85. but it takes 60 to end a filibuster nt

[Better Believe It]

92. True. But, what Republican filibusters have you seen on C-Span this year?

How long did they last and now many times was cloture voted on?

Those are fake bogus filibusters.

The fact is, Republicans haven't been forced to filibuster.

That's the problem.

Republicans are being permitted to engage in what some progressive journalists have called "phantom" or fake filibusters.

A Republican Senator leaving the Senate floor may hand Senator Reid a simple piece of paper claiming he/she is engaged in a filibuster while they go off for a five star dinner engagement or have an affair with a corporate sponsored and paid for hooker!

That must stop!

Senator Reid has the power to force Republicans to engage in a genuine "on the Senate floor" filibuster under Senate Rule 22 until they run out of gas or bull shit to spread, whichever comes first!

And Senate Democrats can end their "two track" Senate debate agreement with Republicans anytime they wish.

And Senate Democrats can at anytime use the "Constitutional Option" which Republicans used so effectively against Senate Democrats in 2005. That option can stop any Republican filibuster dead in its tracks.

[theFrankFactor]

108. I'm With You...

The people that play the "not enough votes" tune have a good point but that doesn't mean it's right or the ONLY point! To not even give a real voice to the option and the way Barack chooses to beat this bull shit "bipartisan" horse is WEAK. His little song and dance with the repubbies was cute and will buy him lots of cover but the fact so far is, he's lame.

We have big problems with our party, Republicans in general society ARE represented by these turds with R's after their names, WE aren't represented by people with D's after their names! We actually DO have a DINO problem and in my opinion throwing your hands up in the air in surrender because of this is cowardly. Expediency? Really?! Yeah, we've been speeding right along with all of the "bipartisanship" haven't we? NO!

I want to see spine, self respect, determination, tenacity and a little FEAR in the eyes of the minority. Unless there's a massive movement OUT HERE that ain't gonna happen. Democrats are truly designed to be a safety valve against Progressive legislation.

[dionysus]

93. this is the new tactic: invent your own alternate reality. they repukes are not required to

stay on the floor and talk for days like in the movies, and BBI knows this.

[Better Believe It]

94. You're clearly not familiar with Senate rules. Democrats can force real filibusters if that's what

Republicans really want to do.

Senator Reid can use Senate Rule 22 and can also end the "two track" Senate debate procedure which he currently allows.

These facts and many other hard facts regarding Senate procedures have been pointed out to you many times and you still refuse to accept political reality and instead echo the right-wing Republican and corporate media claims about bogus filibusters.

Do you need some links from me so that you can become familiar with Senate procedures?

You're probably completely in the dark about the "Constitutional Option" that Democrats can use against Republicans. Is that right?

[branders seine]

71. the bosses won't let him.

[troubledamerican]

107. Exactly. What do we think this is -- a democracy?

[Toasterlad]

78. Um...Because It's Not What the Heatlh Care Industry Wants?

In case you haven't figured it out by now, what the American people want isn't exactly Obama's top priority.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. That's a good question, now innit?

[newtothegame]

88. It hasn't caught on because...

of posts like the ones I was seeing all summer. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6509216 Posts with titles like "What do we want? SINGLE PAYER. Whose going to pay for it? THE RICH" getting 200+ recs. Demanding a service for all Americans, but also demanding that .01% of the population foot the entire bill for it, is not only greedy, but politically foolish, in that it guarantees we marginalize ourselves on this issue. We want single payer, we can ALL PAY FOR IT. Plain and simple.

[newspeak]

106. you've probably seen the graph

tax on the wealthy has gone way down since Reagan. It seems no problem that they paid way more under Eisenhower, but now we're putting a strain on the wealthy? When some of the conscientious wealthy are saying they don't pay enough taxes, then maybe they're not paying enough. After all, some get way more perks from our government than what the average citizen can get.

What, they paid about 84% under Eisenhower, and now what is it--33%? I don't think it's foolish that they pay more taxes--hell, we're fighting their oil war--I'd say Wall Street has made enough profits while we have basically foot the bill. Nothing was wrong before when they were paying over fifty percent, but now it's "don't tread on the poor wealthy?"

And, it wouldn't just be the wealthy. Yes, our taxes may also see an increase--I am willing to pay extra taxes for healthcare. I see my in-laws pay for their medicine and going to their doctors' visits--at least six to eight times a month. Their secondary insurance has just been increased to 1,000 per month. Two elderly retired people who have worked their whole lives facing these costs while trying to buy food and keep a house over their heads.

I'm jealous of some other industrialized countries that actually "take care" of their citizens--that actually care about their communities. I spoke with a woman from Luxembourg about ten years ago--she told me that when you have a baby in Luxembourg you are given money to assist caring for the child until they are adults. She married an american--she said that the children are considered the future of the country and that they are treasured. Evidently, she didn't see the same perceptions in the US.

[newtothegame]

110. I'm willing to pay extra taxes too.

But that's not what most DU'ers are clamoring for. Most posts I've seen are exactly like the one I referenced: "What do we want? SINGLE PAYER. Whose gonna pay for it? THE RICH."

[Cleita]

90. Bernie Sanders said it best.

To paraphrase, he said that the interests of the health insurance and PhRMA are so powerful that they can't be brought down. We would have to reject their product wholesale, meaning we wouldn't buy it and doctors should refuse to accept it. Then they would go the way of the horse and buggy but that won't happen and now I fear with mandated insurance, they really have the public enslaved to them.

[dionysus]

91. um, because there's not 60 senators who arent bought off with campaign contributions?

because there probably isnt even 50? then again, you know that damned well.

:shrug:

[flyarm]

149. Yep..even Bernie ...here>>>

http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/01/senate-democrats-spend-the-weekend-with-fat-cat-lobbyists-at-the-miami-beach-ritz/

Senate Democrats Spend the Weekend with “Fat Cat” Lobbyists at the Miami Beach Ritz

snip:
meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez; Michigan’s Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; freshmen Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska; and even left-leaning Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

[Demeter]

95. Obama Talks the Talk about Change, but He Can't Walk the Walk

It is a severe handicap for anyone trying to pass for a liberal Democrat.

[amborin]

96. K&R

[inna]

98. kr+65

[Mari333]

101. money. knr

[Roland99]

103. He called it "too radical" just a few months ago.

He's sold his soul re: healthcare. Willing to compromise to the corporations.

[LWolf]

104. Because when he said he'd listen, he meant that he'd listen to what he wanted to.

When he said "show me a better plan," you didn't hear the "NOT" he tacked on after he left the room.

[earth mom]

105. Who cares? Obama made such a rad SOTU address and that's all that matters!

:sarcasm:

[theFrankFactor]

109. LOVE IT! LOL!!!

[Kalun D]

124. Talk the People's Talk

Walk the Corporate Walk

[QC]

142. And he's so sexxxy in his swimsuit!

Hubba hubba!

[defendandprotect]

111. Corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[slipslidingaway]

117. knr n/t

[G_j]

118. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

119. Obamas 16 words: if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, br

if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

OK, it's more than 16, but it's just as much bull.

[Union Yes]

127. K&R 107! nt

[begin_within]

129. Maybe his hands are tied (to donations from the interests that would be affected)

same problem with most congressmembers. Their hands are too tied to the big donors. That's why they are paralyzed from the neck up.

[eagertolearn]

136. One Dr and one Nurse in this house in total support of a single payer

like medicare for all. Imagine having one system with the same paper work. Everyone pays in something (maybe a precentage of what they make) and everyone gets care despite who they are or what they may be sick with. You wouldn't have to worry about insurance when you temporarily lose your job or when you are 62 and move to a different state and can't get insured by the same company that has been taking your money for years becasue now you might get sick! Health care is a basic human right!

[GinaMaria]

177. Add one more nurse to that total support

Yes, health care is a basic human right, not a commodity to be bought, sold or traded.

[emsimon33]

140. Thank you for posting this

[QC]

141. Perhaps because the health and FIRE sectors of the economy gave him $60,000,000.

[salguine]

143. Because Obama, like all the others, is President of Corporate America first and you and me second.

[cliffordu]

146. Mostly because it's a non-starter. He cannot rule by decree.

And don't tell me he can do it if he wants to.

It would be easier to guarantee 100% employment. Think about it.

[Ken Burch]

150. And Medicare for all is a budget item, so it could be passed using reconciliation

n/t.

[FunMe]

151. All these CORPORATE WHORES in DC will get their karma

It's not rocket science. Our president and the rest of the political clown in DC from both parties have been bought off by corporations. They are all CORPORATE WHORES and they will get their bad karma for refusing to help We the People.

Constitutional "scholar" ... yeah right!

[1]

155. because obama knows how to read polls...

if one polls says "do you want single-payer?" and a bunch of folk say "yeah!"

and then the next poll says "do you want single-payer and are prepared to pay for it?" and a most folk say "um... no!"

obama (in his mind goes "2 + 2 = 4") and decides what the smart thing to do is.


that is how obama listens. to the widest public support. and makes his decisions.

see?

[Shining Jack]

159. Yup.

What a great leader.

[undergroundnomore]

160. with each tick

of the clock someone is dying here in America because they lack health care. Meanwhile Congress enjoys some of the greatest health insurance in the world at our expense. Sounds backwards doesn't it?

[midnight]

163. K&R. For those of us who probably know why those

doctors were not allowed to explain to the president how a better way to bring healthcare reform could be done. I suspect that real reform would entail taking away the middleman "insurance co." who have hoodwinked many into thinking that they are helping to keep costs down. More than twenty-five years ago, many might have believed it, but not anymore. Now those who are constrained by this model of business are awake and say remove the gatekeepers, and you remove the biggest obstacle to affordable healthcare...

[Clear Blue Sky]

165. Expanding Medicare is so logical.

It's a public option already in place and working. Not one to be created.

[valerief]

169. Logical, easy, cheap, made to order. But how can the wealthy get richer off it? nt

[Clear Blue Sky]

211. Maybe that's the problem. Ya think?

[valerief]

223. Yep, but they control the men with guns. nt

[valerief]

168. I guess ideas only count if they come from bought-n-paid-for Repub senators. nt

[SlingBlade]

174. It's Classic O'Bull Shit. And they know it.

Too many Americans, DO NOT BELIEVE IT !

Which will be more than obvious come November.

Can't wait for the day after when Gibbs, Rham and the rest of that DLC Scum
turn it around and blame it all on those evil lib'ruls, Progressives and
backwards looking divisive anti bi-partisanship hate mongrels.

It's Coming to a polling place near you :argh:

[MrMickeysMom]

175. You mean I have to dig up that letter and send it AGAIN? Okay...

How shall I state differently my background, education and experience, so that my recommendation of single payer weighs in "properly" this time?

Did I NOT say it well enough the first 4 times?

Did I NOT cc a copy to the appropriate level member of the POTUS Cabinet?

Should I have sent my CV and letters of validation?

Should I have followed up with a phone call to the White House switch board and be recorded?

Should I have tagged it like the recent consumer survey that was sent to my house would have been so that the data was compiled into a "market"?

Should I have offered entry into a sweepstakes if he read it by February 1st (of LAST year)?


Tell me what I have to do?

TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO?

Tell us what WE HAVE TO DO, Mr. President!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

176. the easiest way would be for him to allow states to run their own

with start up Fed money (stimulus)

the problem is he hasn't got the support from the health insurance prophets (Senators) for single payer. Everyone has to lean on their senators.

[John Q. Citizen]

186. Obama has the support of the insurance industry. Follow the money and it's easy to see why Obama

ignores single payer solutions.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

189. the only way is to ask him why he still wants to associate with these

[jonathon]

179. Obama is a corporate frontman...a salesman for the insurance industry

And, the pharmaceutical companies

And, the nuclear power industry

And, the mythological clean coal industry

And, the oil industry

The myth of this President of the people is paper thin and utterly empty.

Obama won't do right by the people unless he is forced to do so.

[Orsino]

188. Because we're whispering it instead of shouting it...

...and therefore Congress pretends not to hear it.

As thrilling as it would be for our president to flip-flop and go for broke on a single-payer promotional tour, Congress would simply yawn and snicker.

[yurbud]

197. I think we could take a crap on each of their desks and they still wouldn't do it.

[yurbud]

196. UPTON SINCLAIR: It is difficult to get a man to understand something...

when his job depends on not understanding it.''

I would go a little further and say Obama's LIFE probably depends on him not understanding it.

[kath]

198. a-yup.

I think you've got it.

[yurbud]

200. I imagine a conversation with Rahm telling Obama what he has to do and not do to be president

and he's sticking to it.

[Romulox]

201. Cherchez Le $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ nt

[slipslidingaway]

202. *****Support for single payer - some polls from 2003 to 2009 ...

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

"Do you favor or oppose, "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?"

Favor 58%, Oppose 38%, NA/DK 3%"

[backtomn]

204. Because he doesn't care what we think and.......

he thinks we are stupid.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded.html

Enough said.

[BrklynLiberal]

207. An EXCELLENT question..

[totodeinhere]

208. Because the big corporations own him just like all the rest of the politicians. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

209. That is what struck me the most.

That line to the pugs made my mind go wild. Progressives have brought him ideas that work and have past all scrutiny as the best, the most cost effective and over all best on all counts, and thats the single payer. Why didn't you listen to that idea Mr. Pres. He seemed to be saying to the pugs, hey I am one of you, why are you fighting me, Many of the things in my bill were and are republican ideas, hell my whole cabinet, and the whole damn administration, is full of pugs and DINO's.

[Norrin Radd]

213. kr

[Jamastiene]

224. I'm thinking he obviously doesn't support the public option.

If he did support it, he'd lay a smack down on the stalwarts and make it happen. Regardless of what some people claim, he does have the power to heavily influence these decisions.