"Unlike R.J. Reynolds, Pfizer, or Bank of America, the U.S. populace lacks the access to public officials required to further its legislative goals," a statement from the nation read in part. "Jack Weldon gives us that access."posted by 2bucksplus at 7:13 AM on October 6, 2010 [22 favorites]
"His daily presence in the Capitol will ensure the American people finally get a seat at the table," the statement continued. "And it will allow him to advance our message that everyone, including Americans, deserves to be represented in Washington."
Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. [...] Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers.Now he is talking as if this is negative but if you like the idea of single-payer health care then it should provide some solace.
I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:Here's where I would have placed the emphasis, changing the meaning almost entirely:
DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay.
I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:There's not the slightest suggestion in any of Daschle's remarks or in any other source I've seen that Obama personally cut a deal with the health industry to take the public option off the table. It may simply have been clear that the Dem congressional leadership wanted it that way before agreeing to go along and support the bill.
DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay.
DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it's debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation. I think there is probably a good deal of truth to it. You look at past efforts and the doctors and the hospitals, and the insurance companies all opposed health care reform. This time, in various degrees of enthusiasm, they supported it. And if I had to point out some of the key differences between then and now, it would be the most important examples of the difference.Conclusion #1: Obama and Senate Democrats took the public option off the table because they secretly hated it and/or delight in lying to progressives and hippies.
After Shahzad had pleaded guilty to the first charge, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, Judge Cedarbaum said, "I gather you want to plead guilty to all [the charges.]So you remember back when the Iraq War was still young, fresh, and seemingly full of possibility, you made fun of how stupid George W. Bush was not to understand how he was inflaming anti-American hatred throughout the Muslim world?
"Yes," said Shahzad, and then said he wanted to plead guilty and 100 times more," because he wanted the U.S. to know it will continue to suffer attacks if it does not leave Iraq and Afghanistan and stop drone strikes in Pakistan.
Yemen has become a battleground between the international jihad and the West. Special forces and intelligence officials from several Nato countries, including the UK and US, have beent in the country. The Americans are hunting, in particular, Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric who is said to have been a mentor to the "underpants bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a transatlantic airliner and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, of the US Army who shot dead 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas.There is the only reference -- the writer extrapolating a context as to why the US may be striking in Yemen.
« Older 'I looked into that camera. And I just said it.'... | Robert Thompson of Syracuse Un... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:53 AM on October 6, 2010 [21 favorites]