Comments on: Waxman’s Methods

By: VJBinCT

VJBinCT — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:45:03 +0000

Henry has a great advantage with TWO middle fingers and a tickly little moustache. Both useful in jello wrestling.

By: fatster

fatster — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:24:18 +0000

and Evely @60. Excellent points! Thnx.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:02:50 +0000

“I do have one last idea to add, FWIW. Put single-payer back on the table, as Justinajustice (”Medicare for All”) and marchan1940 suggest above. Instead of compromising, tack left.” — You are absolutely right. Time to fall back, push harder, and increase the demands.

Single Payer — Better Medicare for All — IS on the table. Money and support should be going to those who vote for Single Payer.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/.....gle-payer/

By: Auduboner

Auduboner — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:23:47 +0000

Ummm… Seems lots of you are missing the point. Almost ALL the Blues, and many other mega-insurers, are REGISTERED NON-PROFITS. There are serious restrictions on how such entities may spend money in the political arena.

I believe this is where Waxman’s investigation is headed. If they are breaking the law to obstruct health insurance reform, Rahm’s deal and goose are cooked. Go Henry!

By: fatster

fatster — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:04:42 +0000

Muchas gracias, senor.

By: akak

akak — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:37:54 +0000

ha ha… when i was first typing it… i misspelled it piece .. a freudian slip

By: Justinajustice

Justinajustice — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:34:26 +0000

I agree with you completely. But coupled with Kucinich’s bill to include the right of state’s to pass single-payer, this idea might work to get us cheap health care while Obama and Rahm pander to the corporations.

By: bobash

bobash — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:18:50 +0000

Yep. I’m just now understanding the true picture of the health care effort. Late to the game I’m afraid. Between the Wall St. bailout, the failure to prosecute torture and wiretapping crimes, and this debacle, I’ve very little faith left in Obama.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:07:31 +0000

That should have been the tack from the start, and then “compromised down” to the full public option if they had to. But a decision was made to negotiate against themselves before they ever went to the GOP, and it is hard to see how they can put that worm back in the can at this point.

By: bobash

bobash — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:01:25 +0000

If Obama played the game the way the Republicans do, the last 6 months would have been a scorched earth campaign against the health insurance industry; see Cenk’s vision if your imagination is no better than mine–it really made the distinction clear for me.

So why has Obama and team been soft on health insurance industry? Because as Jane pointed out, it was a tactic to keep the industry’s money out of the Republican’s pockets in 2009-10. But at the cost of selling out not only single payer, but any public option as well.

So now that we understand how the game has progressed thus far, what to do? Pass a watered down bill and keep the money in our corner (Rahm’s clear intent)? I.e., give up on real health care reform (yet again)? Or pursue real reform by castigating the insurance industry as the parasites they are and accept that Dem’s will have to compete against their money in the mid-terms. If you prefer the latter as I do, consider what this really means. It will require a ton of money. And more than a just a few well-placed exposes of the industry’s shameful ways. We’re talking about having to put more fear into the eyes of the corporate-funded blue dogs than they have of losing their health industry funds to their competitors. That’s a lot of fear. Merely pointing out the fact they have sold out the country to keep their current gig is not going to do it. I don’t begin to know how Waxman or anyone else leads that charge.

I do have one last idea to add, FWIW. Put single-payer back on the table, as Justinajustice (”Medicare for All”) and marchan1940 suggest above. Instead of compromising, tack left. When they cry “they’re going to bankrupt the government”, ask to see any alternative that takes as much money out of the system for less added-value, and put Rep. Anthony Weiner in front of them asking the same question with which he left Joe Scarborogh speechless: what value do they bring to the table? Except for their shareholders, their employees, and the tools on the far right who are convinced anything Obama does is a government takeover, how many Americans will defend the insurance industry when they are personified by the industry’s CEO’s?