Why I mistrust Obamacare, pt 2
A reminder(above). This is from a speech Obama gave in Chicago in 2003. I guess that was then.
See also:
San Francisco Chronicle/AP, July 3rd:
"Under Senate health care plan, either way you pay"
John Dickerson, Slate, Tuesday, July 7, 2009:
"Going Public, Quietly: Why Obama wants to be as vague as possible about health care reform"
Michael Lind, Salon, July 21st: "Healthcare reform: More raw deal than New Deal"
We need universal, citizen-based healthcare. It doesn't look like Obama and Congress are ready to give it to us
Bruce A. Dixon, Black Agenda Report,Weds, 07/22/2009:
"Is the Obama Health Care Plan Really Better Than Nothing?"
(via Skookum)
Lambert at Corrente, 7/21:
'How the Dems and "progressives" are selling you the "bait and switch" of public option'
and finally, Wikepedia's US healthcare reform article, which keeps growing. More later.
cross-posted at Hugo Zoom.
Labels: healthcare, insurance, politics, so-called-liberal-media
posted by Jonathan Versen @ 9:55 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
This is from a speech Obama gave in Chicago in 2003. I guess that was then.
Speeches are bullshit. They are given to create an appearance of what the candidate stands for. They are given to get voter support, not to explain the politician's true intentions.
Only naivete would inform someone's belief that Obama has ever been anything but a shill for moneyed interests. The most obvious source of such naivete is a combination of liberal guilt over racism, and a strong desire to see "racial progress" via a Black POTUS.
Ironically, the lib-wools and pwoggies who hail Obama as our proof of America's post-racism transition were not hailing Colin Powell or Condi Rice as such proof.
Were they?
No, they were not.
I think it futile, on the order of banging one's head against the wall until both are very bloody, to worry and wonder about what Obama said at any point in his life once he graduated from college at an Ivy League Corporate Drone Factory. I don't give a flying fuck WHAT Obama may have said that gave Louie Lib-Wool a raging erection, or gave Patty Pwoggie a moist vagina. This shit is irrelevant.
What IS relevant is the fact that Obama lies to us with every word he utters, and that he does so as our first post-racism Black POTUS.
Think of what that means for Black people in power from this point forward.
The good people at Black Agenda Report know well what this means. It means Obama is taking race relations BACKWARD at high speed.
Some Obamessiah.
PS:
Lambert's analysis is bullshit. It's not about numbers. It's not about the strategy to get the bill passed. It's not about how soon the bill will be signed into law.
It's about the fact that this is one HUGE FUCKING CHARADE and that what we need, and what people must demand, is a French- or Canadian-styled socialized medical care system.
People like Lambert are like policy wonks. They bog themselves down in what they think are strategic details on the process. They are what I call "process-mavens." They are the equivalent of the "sports fan" who pretends to be all-knowing while citing statistics regarding his favorite team or athlete.
Both categories of people are spectators who are concerned with the artifice, and unconcerned with the game itself. The "sports fan" is not an athlete playing a sport. He is a watcher who believes himself athletic by associating himself with a team and memorizing their statistics.
Likewise Lambert sees him(her?)self a wise political analyst, while all he(she?) offers is bullshit pseudo-analysis of irrelevant details.
Bah. I can't be bothered to read that Corrente shit.
re Michael Lind's article --
I know people like Lind, who look back at The New Deal as the high-water-mark of American governmental action.
Such naivete.
The New Deal was a giveaway to FDR's pals. It was no different than the "bailouts" we have witnessed under the Miraculous Transition from Bush to Obama.
The New Deal cemented a technocratic approach to federal government -- an approach which assumed we need to have "experts" on "policy" telling us STUPID citizens what we need.
A truly NEW DEAL would be one that responds to citizens, and not one that lectures them on what they really want and need.
The New Deal we had in the 40s was crap, it was about "civilizing" (READ: making into profitable "markets") the rural parts of America.
Some cite to the "jobs" created by the New Deal. Were these "jobs" meaningful? Or is merely having a "job" the pinnacle of life in America?
Joe Bageant's latest entry tells the truth about the vaunted status of holding a "job" and why it's not even close to a solution for an equitable American society.
Michael Lind needs to get his head out of FDR's ass.
To tell the truth I have not paid any attention to Obama’s health reform. All that is needed is to extend Medicare to every living breathing human in the States. It could create hundreds of thousands of jobs as well as bringing what ought to be a basic right, the right to medical care to everyone. So until I hear those magic words “Everyone is now on Medicare” there isn’t much point in spinning your wheels over this issue. That we cannot get a true single payer plan is a clear indication of the rot and corruption that is at the heart of this government.
One argument I heard was that Obama shouldn't have left the plan up to congress. Rather, he ought to have sat down with cabinent members,etc and worked it out. And as for FDR, I know he wasn't to your liking Charles,but at least he got us out of the depression.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home