Spintested: 11/17/10

How the GOP Blew it on the Paycheck Fairness Act -- and Who the Biggest Cowards Were

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

You didn't see it, but you've "heard it all before".

You make easily refuted declarations like "Obama passed more legislation than any president", and you expect to be taken seriously.

We've been here before. Why do you even bother commenting on anything I post if you aren't interested in doing the most miniscule of effort to have an intelligent opinion, i.e., looking at the clip? You're obviously entitled to believe whatever you want, but I think you're a silly 'b0t of a person.
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Congress Got Richer During Recession

Watch their first act in January when the new Congress convenes: PAY RAISES!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How the GOP Blew it on the Paycheck Fairness Act -- and Who the Biggest Cowards Were

Why guess? Why don't you watch it?

Chicken?
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Airport Pat-Downs Are MORE Invasive, TSA Boss Confirms

Add to this: [t]he warrantless border seizure of the laptop and cellphone of a Bradley Manning supporter for the crime of visiting Manning in prison, The New York Times today editorializes in favor of greater restrictions on such searches and writes:

There is also a big difference between government agents scanning items for explosives or looking through a suitcase full of clothing, and searching through the hard drive of a laptop computer containing work papers, financial records, e-mail messages and Web site visits. . . .

The George W. Bush administration first authorized border agents to seize and view the contents of laptops, smartphones, and other devices and copy and share data with other government agencies without need for any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

The Obama administration has tweaked the policy, requiring approval from supervisors to hold a seized device for more than five days, for example. The fundamental flaw remains: it permits the government to engage in indiscriminate and invasive fishing expeditions.

This is the Change, the "tweaking", that Obama has brought to the nation in these areas: we're going to keep in place and aggressively enforce George Bush's unfettered laptop seizure policy for Americans, but our Goodness is reflected by our new requirement that some low-level unaccountable "supervisor" somewhere give their approval if we want to keep the citizen's seized property for more than five days. Well, just as long as some unseen "supervisor" agrees that my seized, searched and downloaded laptop can be permanently stolen by the Federal Government and all its data permanently stored and shared even in the absence of a whiff of suspicion that I've done anything wrong, then I'm satisfied.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Airport Pat-Downs Are MORE Invasive, TSA Boss Confirms

Get your mother and grandmother over here, Clayton. Let's see what they have to say about it.

I know plenty of people, me included, who resent like h3ll your telling others what's "way overblown", who don't want nude photos of them taken by scanners winding up on the internet or on television.

Strip down and walk to the center of your town at high noon. Stand on a busy intersection, raise your arms and turn 360 degrees, slowly. Stand there for 2 minutes, then walk back to your home. That would be more the equivalent.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Airport Pat-Downs Are MORE Invasive, TSA Boss Confirms

TSA is saying you don't *have* to fly.

==============================

The TSA is not the final authority on that.

In modern times, where people's jobs are dependent upon their being able to get from point A to point B in record time, plane travel is a *have to*.

That's the way it needs to be framed and fought in the courts.

Right after 9/11, before 9/11 actually, I said that it's very easy for the government to keep Americans safe from terr0r attacks by locking everybody up into controllable quadrants, invading privacy and restricting freedom of movement and privacy. But the government has no right to do that. The government is prohibited from doing that. And it's unnecessary.

Nothing of the abuses by our government have anything to do with keeping us safe. It's about continuing commerce. That's it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Airport Pat-Downs Are MORE Invasive, TSA Boss Confirms

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Republicans Block An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Paycheck Fairness Act

Delays on Franklin? Do you mean Al Franken?

Stop with the BS.

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did. Nothing changed.

Democrats said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate". In 2008, we gave them the 60. And the White House.

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old r@c!st America, than ever voted for anyone else in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate t00I.

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at d.e.a.t.h's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & sloooooowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans", after Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything, in lockstep.

Democrats don't get to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter without taking the blame for not following it up immediately with legislation for transparency in pay. It's a joke without it. It's like taking you to a Gordon Ramsay restaurant, blowing in aromas from the kitchen, but not letting you eat.

We have a faux president, who uses the bully pulpit to bash the base of the Democrat party. Never Republicans. He puts his power behind moving the Democratic party even farther to the right-of-center than it already is. He does everything he can to PREVENT bringing pressure to bear on Republicans and the Blue Dogs, beginning with blocking investigations and prosecutions into the crimes of Bush and Cheney.

Enough with the BS. It's time to cleanse the DLC from the Democratic Party. Long past it, actually.
About Women's Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Republicans Block An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Paycheck Fairness Act

Don't you wonder why Democrats didn't bring this legislation right on the heels of Lily Ledbetter two years ago?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

With White House Pressing, Reid Vows DADT Repeal Will Reach Senate Floor

If Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire as they are set to on December 31st, the deficit would be cut in half, instantly.

If the tax cuts are continued for the rich, we would have to borrow $700 billion to pay for it.

If the tax cuts are continued for everyone, we would have to borrow $3 trillion to pay for it.

And if there is a 2-year extension "compromise", we would still have to borrow $70-140 billion for the rich's portion and $383 billion for the middle class's portion.

Obama is expanding the wars into Yemen.

Where's the money coming from?

Obama and Democratic leadership have already indicated they're on board with Social Security cuts, privatizing, etc.

There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses.
About Don't Ask Don't Tell
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

Neither Biden or Hillary would be any different. Both of then ran to the RIGHT of Obama.

This is a SYSTEMIC problem.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

No such leader is going to emerge from the Democratic Party as long as their standard bearer is the presumptive nominee for 2012.

What Soros is doing is giving the Democratic Party the chance to cut their losses, get Obama out of the way, so that if any such charismatic leader exists within the Democratic Party the path is cleared. Before an Independent comes forward.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

Obama maintained that healthcare reform was essential to job creation, which I suppose it is...in the long term. The reform took over a year and was watered down, and many of the benefits don't kick in until 2014. What Americans want now are jobs. They want to know where TARP went. They want to know when the wars are going to end. They want foreclosures to stop. I see two problems: (1) Obama and the Dems did not articulate what they had accomplished, and they were terrible at explaining the healthcare bill to the American people, and (2) Their priorities weren't right. You do not tackle the biggest and most complicated job first -- especially when it will not be implemented until two years after you might possibly be out of office.
=============================================

The real shame of this is that Obama could have been a transcendent president, good for both business AND the People. It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Cheney.

The job creation possibilities were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronistic and failed insurance industry and employer-provided system for medical care, which is government-sanctioned racketeering.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcing of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).

The SinglePayerUniversalHealthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way. It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone & boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance & Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance & Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physician practitioners (nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, and other allied health professionals). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competently provided by this level practitioner. There's no reason to waste a physician's time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases.

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs & non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.

These are all good things, but Obama chose the dark side. The CORPORATE side.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

Actually, the job creation aspect of healthcare reform was lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and outsourcing of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet, all for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone -- Not even those who think they're going to get it.

The real shame of this is that Obama could have been a transcendent president, good for both business AND the People. It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Cheney.

For even a single payer universal healthcare program wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business. It would have been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance & Big Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance & Big Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physician practitioners (nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, and other allied health professionals). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competently provided by this level practitioner. There's no reason to waste a physician's time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases.

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we would need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would probably mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.

These are all good things.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

I'm with you.

If Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire as they are set to on December 31st, the deficit would be cut in half, instantly.

If the tax cuts are continued for the rich, we would have to borrow $700 billion to pay for it.

If the tax cuts are continued for everyone, we would have to borrow $3 trillion to pay for it.

And if there is a 2-year extension "compromise", we would still have to borrow $70-140 billion for the rich's portion and $383 billion for the middle class's portion.

Obama is expanding the wars into Yemen.

Where's the money coming from?

Obama and Democratic leadership have already indicated they're on board with Social Security cuts, privatizing, etc.

There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

No, not in primaries, dearie.

Presidents do NOT get involved in primaries. They do not endorse one member of their party over another member of their party. It has never been done before Obama.

And the reason is based in respect for the process of a democratic republic, and the People who agree to abide by the rule of law, who consent to be governed by it in exchange for being able to choose who among them they will select to make the laws they are to be bound by..

Citizens have little enough of a Constitutionally-guaranteed role within this democracy as it is -- We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).

To have a President enter into the process at the most basic level, state primaries, and circumvent the People's ability to make their preference known, is a gross abuse of the process.

Obama was the first president to do it, beginning with the deal he made with Republican Arlen Specter when Specter left the Republican Party to become an Independent.

Obama then did the unconscionable by refusing to endorse Democratic candidates in the general election, "out of respect for the Independent candidates".
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gibbs: DADT Still A Priority

Rachel Maddow said it eloquently last month:

Robert Gibbs said today “The best way to end it is for the Senate to follow the lead of the House of Representatives so that end can be implemented in a fashion that‘s consistent with our obligations in fighting two wars.”

“But absent that action,” he said, “The president, again has set up a process to end this policy. The bottom line is that this is a policy that‘s going to end. It‘s not whether it will end, but the process by which it will end.”

Here‘s the thing: The White House line, the line from the administration on this now is that they‘d like the Senate to repeal it. Absent that action, the spokesman said. Absent that action. Absent the Senate voting to repeal it. Absent the moon crashing through the atmosphere and turning us all to green cheese.

Absent that action of the Senate repealing “DADT”, the White House says there's an orderly process underway to get rid of the policy. And that orderly process is that the Senate will repeal it? The WhiteHouse is sternly ensuring everyone that the policy will end.

And when you drill down on how they say it will end, they say it will end because the Senate will end it even though the Senate has just chosen not to end it and the Senate is poised to get more conservative not less in the imminent elections.

This is incoherence.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gibbs: DADT Still A Priority

From Rachel Maddow's program last month:

== Aaron Belkin, an expert on the issue at UC Santa Barbara told the New York Times that, “Unless the president declines to appeal the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans versus the United States, the ‘Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell‘ policy probably will remain law for years.”

Unless you believe the US Senate is going to do the right thing by g@y people. This year, with JohnMcCain still there & a slate of homoph0b!c Republican Senate candidates poised to enter. Unless you believe that the US Senate after this year‘s elections is going to do the right thing by g@y service members, then the decision by the ObamaAdministration, whether or not to appeal this ruling, is likely a decision between k!lling this policy now & letting it survive probably forever.

Obama's DoJ appealing this ruling was not an inevitability. The administration is not obligated to appeal. If the administration believes the law is unconstitutional, there's precedent that supports the administration not appealing it & letting the law d!e.

An orderly time frame for the de@th of a law can be arranged with the court. That's the way it is. A plan that has no chance of becoming reality is not a real plan no matter how much you say it is. You can either end it or you can stop saying you will.==
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gibbs: DADT Still A Priority

The WH needs David Plouffe on board.
================================

Because Plouffe is better at deceiving listeners?

I'm not quite sure your point. Is it that when people listen to Gibbs, they know he's FOS, and thus Obama is FOS? And that the goal is to confuse and deceive listeners into believing that Obama is really pulling out all of the stops to end DADT and if the Senate doesn't end it in this lame duck session, then Obama will sign a stop-loss order, and tell Eric Holder to stand down, not appeal Log Cabin Republicans vs. Gates, and work with the judge on a procedure for ending the policy?
About Robert Gibbs
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

Just out of curiosity, what happens in your family when someone admits to making a mistake? Does anybody in your family ever admit to being wrong?
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

No. Pelosi is not the real deal.

With Pelosi back as the leader, and Reid undoubtedly continuing as the Senate Majority Leader, Obama and the Democratic Party have reconstituted themselves, ready to give Democratic voters more of the same of the past 4 years (since Pelosi and Reid took over both chambers of Congress in 2006). Their spin, that the election was a mandate for Obama's continuing to cave to Republicans, 'bipartisanship', etc., and Congress delivering Republican-like legislation with Democrats giving the appearance of objecting, is sealed. Just as I predicted.

The only way that can happen, failed leaders being returned to power, is if the results of the last two years are EXACTLY what the powers-that-be within the Democratic Party intended.

Trying to change the (DLC-controlled) Democratic Party's congressional leadership is like trying to break up mercury and keep the droplets apart. The DLC-controlled leadership is like the Terminator, working against the People, working against getting corporate interests out of government, and against getting real reforms into place.

I'm convinced that the only solution to getting the nation back on track and out of the hands of the oligarchs (if it's even possible at this point) is going to have to come from outside of the Democratic Party.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

How old are you, princess?

I see you just got an account here. Did you political consciousness also just begin with your account, on 9/21/2010 when Obama stumped for Sestak? Do you know what happened before that date?

Do you know that Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania? Do you know that Obama tried to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak with a job in the administration if he wouldn't run against Specter?

Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

Aside from the fact that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Obama's already said that he's going to do the same thing that he's been doing. He said it both before the midterms, and reiterated it after.

Before, even if Democrats remain the majority, more caving to Republicans:

==Aides say that the president's been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorming with administration officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the WhiteHouse.

And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

DickDurbin says Obama's post-election agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable & high priorities for the American people." TomDaschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive."==

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-new-york-times_n_760774.html

After the midterms:

Obama Urges Bipartisanship, Not Gridlock

Obama vows to ‘redouble’ efforts toward bipartisanship

Then there's Obama's signaling to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Come on now; how far into denial are you going to go?
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

To those who say, "No, the solution is to elect more progressives/liberals", I say, "Nice idea, but that's not possible with the DLC working with Republicans against it".

Obama and the DLC have worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind Blue Dogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats:

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

Republican-turned-Independent Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak.

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constitutionally-guaranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic). But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

I just wish he had said we need to primary Obama.

========================================

He just did.

That's what this means.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

White House-PhRma Secret Memo Surfaces:

==Since mid-July, the White House and the drug industry’s Washington lobby, PhRMA, have denied any specific agreement that would give the industry big benefits in exchange for its support for President Barack Obamas healthcare overhaul effort.==

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/17/white-house-phrma-memo-surfaces-again/

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/ive_been_trying_to_peel_1.php

http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/53311447.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31464689/ns/politics-white_house

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124567211118336815.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/jan-june09/pharma_06-22.html

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/white-house-insists-it-di_n_255682.html

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=3&hp

http://www.alternet.org/story/141856/obama's_$80_billion_deal_with_pharma_is_a_very_bad_deal_for_us/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

There is no doubt that Republicans are scvm. None.

But Democrats aren't any better.

You're mistaking words for action. I don't give a chit what politicians say; the proof is in the pudding. The proof is what they do.

We already would have had a public option had it not been for Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress.

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconciliation anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Democratic voters, for the most part, still haven't finished their love affair with Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush's "best friend" and partner in advancing the move to a "new world order".

Most Democratic voters think the Clintons are liberals. Most Democrats don't know that the Clintons co-founded the DLC; most Democratic voters have no idea what the DLC is.

Just like the real debate & assessment of Reagan that's never happened, we've never assessed Clinton's true legacy. Eliminating the social welfare safety nets, Glass-Steagle, the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rendition, privatization, the sanctions & daily bombing of Iraq (& so much more) laid the foundation for what BushCheney did to decimate the country. As AlanGreenspan said, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."

The Clintons benefitted greatly from the repeal of Glass-Steagall (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), which Bill Clinton signed into law at the end of his administration, and what's behind the economic meltdown. He made $100 million in the last ten years, and much more than that (unknown, secret, which is the nature of hedge funds) from his dealings with Yucaipa and Ron Burkle.

In the weeks before the midterms elections, when Bill Clinton was campaigning for candidates in states where Obama's popularity is in the tank, not one reporter asked Clinton any question of substance (including his signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed Glass-Steagall, and would he do all over again if he had the chance -- He would, by the way).

This is another reason for why there have to be investigations and prosecutions into the collapse of our economy and the 'preemptive wars' policies -- Obama has to stop blocking these processes, because we can't go forward without looking back. We cannot make wise decisions, not about policies and not about the politicians we need to make these policies and lead us without knowing what the h3ll happened.

Once Americans learn the role of both parties, and who these politicians really are and who they're aligned with, they will understand that both political parties are corrupt to the core and that the solution for our political and financial woes can only come from OUTSIDE of these parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi Elected House Minority Leader

Apparently u didn't read the report out saying the Health Care Bill will control cost effectively, an will need some twicking from time to time. But all in all it is a good bill they say!
=========================================================

Apparently you didn't read "the report" because that's not what it says. And I'll give you $100 if you can tell us who 'they' are that wrote the report within 2 minutes (no Googling).

When you write "u" or "U", you couldn't possibly mean me. I'm an old liberal Democrat who wants affordable, quality medical care for everyone. I fought against Bush-Cheney with every breath out of my body -- Even before he got into the White House. Same for his father. And his father's predecessor. And Republican administrations going back to the 1950s.

By the way, "makeing" has no 'e'.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Since Obama is somewhat reticent to promote FDR-like policies
===================================================

Obama's not "reticent"; Obama is de@d-set against FDR-like policies.

Obama's and the DLC's plan is to move the Democratic Party even farther to the right-of-center than it already is, and make it into the Republican Party of the 1950s & 1960s. The Party of Nixon, the party of Goldwater.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

confuseddemocrat 14 minutes ago (4:33 PM)

Yes, Obama has been disappointing in his willingness to compromise with the GOP and the CoC and accept conditions which are counter to many of the liberal/ moderate principles of FDR and Democratic party

However, to take our marbles and go home or to mount a destructive primary which will lead to party division is NOT the answer.

The answer is to work to defeat the newly elected GOP politicians and the cadre of weak GOP senators that will be up for election in 2012.

============================================

Nice idea, but that's not possible with the DLC working with Republicans against it.

Obama and the DLC have worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind Blue Dogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats:

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

Republican-turned-Independent Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak.

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constitutionally-guaranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic). But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

To the rhetoric, "No, the solution is to elect more progressives/liberals", I say, "Nice idea, but that's not possible with the DLC working with Republicans against it".

Obama and the DLC have worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind Blue Dogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats:

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

Republican-turned-Independent Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak.

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti onally-guaranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic). But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

OBAMA = NEEDS A SPINE FOR XMAS

======================================

Rumors of the Democratic politicians having no spines are greatly exaggerated, just like Obama's timidity is myth: He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base.

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare, Wall Street reform, environmental & energy issues, etc.).

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters') to understand that Democratic politicians have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi Elected House Minority Leader

Lynn Woolsey, head of the Progressive Caucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq. She, and congressional Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplemental emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significant here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it. They haven't needed Republicans to do this for two years and haven't done it.

As the head of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislation that didn't include a public option.

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknownst to Lynn Woolsey's constitutents (it was never reported in her district's newspapers): Progressive Congresswoman Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressive Marcy Winograd

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Cheney's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Cheney even better, by letting Obama assert, unchallenged, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret.

Democrats have abdicated their Cons titutional ly-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the Bush-Cheney administration, and still don't with one of their own in the White House.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi Elected House Minority Leader

AxelDC 40 minutes ago (3:48 PM)

"Pelosi was highly effective as Speaker. The House pushed through 170 bills that Reid never bothered to take up."

=======================================================

What's the big accomplishment of getting 420 pieces of legislation passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other? It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Professional Democrats, all Democratic politicians in office, whether they are calling themselves progressives, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnational corporations over the best interests of the People. If they are a professional political and member of the Democratic Party, and in Washington, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnational corporations as their real constituents.

Their only problem with this is that corporations don't vote, and politicians need votes to get into office. So they, Democratic politicians, try to convince the People they're working on our behalf with weasel-words, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true. Obama can say, "I got health insurance for the People", but having health insurance isn't what Americans wanted and isn't what Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get for them. Having health insurance isn't the same thing as everyone being able to get affordable, quality medical treatment.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it. They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corporate legislation) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituents come election time.

Those in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and k!ll liberal legislation (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi Elected House Minority Leader

Obama and the Democratic Party has already reconstituted themselves, having spun the election as a mandate for Obama's continuing to cave to Republicans, 'bipartisanship', etc. Just as I predicted.

This morning in the House, Pelosi is back as the leader. Reid will undoubtedly continue as the Senate Majority Leader. The only way that can happen is if the results of the last two years are EXACTLY what the powers-that-be within the Democratic Party intended.

Trying to change the (DLC-controlled) Democratic Party's congressional leadership is like trying to break up mercury and keep the droplets apart. The DLC-controlled leadership is like the Terminator, working against the People, working against getting corporate interests out of government, and against getting real reforms into place.

I'm convinced that the only solution to getting the nation back on track and out of the hands of the oligarchs (if it's even possible at this point) is going to have to come from outside of the Democratic Party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Obama and the Democratic Party has already reconstituted themselves, having spun the election as a mandate for Obama's continuing to cave to Republicans, 'bipartisanship', etc. Just as I predicted.

This morning in the House, Pelosi is back as the leader. Reid will undoubtedly continue as the Senate Majority Leader. The only way that can happen is if the results of the last two years are EXACTLY what the powers-that-be within the Democratic Party intended.

Trying to change the (DLC-controlled) Democratic Party's congressional leadership is like trying to break up mercury and keep the droplets apart. The DLC-controlled leadership is like the Terminator, working against the People, working against getting corporate interests out of government, and against getting real reforms into place.

I'm convinced that the only solution to getting the nation back on track and out of the hands of the oligarchs (if it's even possible at this point) is going to have to come from outside of the Democratic Party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

All that your comments tell us is that you're ig.nor.ant of what Obama/Pelosi/Reid "accomplished" -- REPUBLICAN-LIKE legislation.

Obama's been continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies. Bush and Cheney were able to do what they did by piggy-backing onto what the previous administrations had been setting up.

The DLC-controlled Congress's watering down of real Democratic legislation, thereby turning it into Republican-like legislation, isn't because they're "nice guys" who don't like confrontation and want to play with and be friends with Republicans. These are all sharks, both sides of the aisle, and We The People are what they're feasting on. You don't get onto the national stage of politics, or anything in the US, unless you're driven and have been delivering to the powers-that-be already.

Republicans love it that the Democrats' watered down legislation, made it Republican-like because they, Republicans, get what they want (generally, or what they can build on later), and they don't have to vote for it. That satisfies their base's need for knee-j3rk tribal warfare between the 2 political parties (how many times have you heard Republican tr0IIs declare that a bill "must be bad if Democrats are for it"?), AND, it satisfies their & Democrats' shared Corporate Masters. They get amply rewarded with great big donations to their reelection campaigns.

What Obama's been doing should be shocking to all real Democratic voters, but you aren't shocked because you're no different than a Bushie -- You think Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation is good because Republican voters hate it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

"I believe OBAMA now realized he was taken for a spin by the centrist from the DLC like Rahm"

===============================================

What you believe isn't so. Obama isn't about to do anything that you're suggesting. He's continuing doing what he's been doing. He was a Iy!ng fraud before the 2008 (there's no way to explain that FISA vote in July 2008) and he's the same Iy!ng fraud now.

Obama's amping up bipartisanship with Republicans:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/40204873#40204873

And the follow-up proof of that is here:

Obama and Democrats back down to the GOP

Howard Fineman discusses why the Democrats are negotiating against themselves on Bush tax cuts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/40204686#40204686

The solution to getting a populist government with politicians accountable to the American people isn't going to come from within either of these two parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

The American taxpayer has been subsidizing pharmaceutical companies for decades with the promise that the R&D we were paying for would result in lower prices and breakthrough cures. Instead, we've been stuck with higher prices (twice as much as other industrialized countries) while the pharmaceutical companies try to snag new markets overseas with what were to be our discounts.

Not only did Obama break his campaign pledge (of the government, PhRma biggest customer, negotiating for lower priced drugs, and reimporting pharmaceuticals), he gave PhRma a huge gift. The deal that Obama made with PhRma wasn't for PhRma to go up against Big Insurance; it was for PhRma to help sell a plan that makes more profits for Big Insurance.

PhRma paid chump change ($80 billion over 10 years, plus $150 million for ads to support a plan that had NO public option) so that they could keep massive profits and k!II public healthcare. Obama (who had dropped the public option and the universal requirement) let the pharmaceutical industry continue to make obscene profits, and gave the insurance industry a clear field and new customers, all paid for with taxpayers' money.

Oh, and by the way, $80 billion over 10 years is less than 1% of the profits PhRma makes in oneyear.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (We the People)".

Democrats (controlled by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republicans are corporate t00Is. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, transnational corporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WeThePeople.

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulations on banks, Wall Street, investigations, prosecutions, restitution of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmental clean-up, clean, sustainable renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, affordable, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislation is not), and more.

The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Both parties have to go.

Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (We the People)".

Democrats (controlled by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republicans are corporate t00Is. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, transnational corporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WeThePeople.

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulations on banks, Wall Street, investigations, prosecutions, restitution of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmental clean-up, clean, sustainable renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, affordable, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislation is not), and more.

The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

missjulz 59 minutes ago (2:05 PM)

"We don't have short term memory loss. We recall the results of meetings with the pharmaceutical industry et al during HCR."

williamg 1 minute ago (2:15 PM)

Yes, and what were the results:

--Donut Hole voluntarily filled in Medicare Part D
--PHarma stays neutral on legislation (Hillary Clinton said PHarma's money was a big reason her plan was defeated in the early 90s).
--Dr.ug reimportation would have to be addressed in seperate legislation.

Why is that so terrible -- especially since dru.g reimportation would lead to the dr.ug companies just raising rates in Canada, allowing Americans little savings?

The 'donut-hole' that never should have existed in the first place, and that the DLC-controlled Democrats created as a "compromise" for Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (another massive corporate giveaway package).

The whole of Medicare Part D was a scam and a scheme by both pro-corporate parties, a "first step" (as Obama's 'most ardent supporters' like to say) towards privatizing public healthcare.

In 2003, PhRMA lobbied hard and got Congress to insert language into the bill that created a Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from using its market clout to negotiate with manufacturers for lower drug prices and making sure the drug benefit was only available through private insurance plans.

The result was that Medicare members can only get drug coverage by joining a private insurance plan. People who have both Medicare and Medicaid (dual-eligibles) were switched from Medicaid prescription drug coverage to a private Medicare drug plan. Prescription drugs for this population cost 30% more under the new private Medicare drug plans than they did under Medicaid, increasing pharmaceutical companies' profits by at least $3.7 billion dollars in just the first two years of the program. For example, Bristol Myers earned a windfall of almost $400 million, thanks to higher prices for the stroke medication Plavix.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

The 'donut-hole' that never should have existed in the first place, and that the DLC-controlled Democrats created as a "compromise" for Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (another massive corporate giveaway package).

The whole of Medicare Part D was a scam and a scheme, a "first step" (as Obama's 'most ardent supporters' like to say) towards privatizing public healthcare.

In 2003, PhRMA lobbied hard and got Congress to insert language into the bill that created a Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from using its market clout to negotiate with manufacturers for lower drug prices and making sure the drug benefit was only available through private insurance plans.

The result was that Medicare members can only get drug coverage by joining a private insurance plan. People who have both Medicare and Medicaid (dual-eligibles) were switched from Medicaid prescription drug coverage to a private Medicare drug plan. Prescription drugs for this population cost 30% more under the new private Medicare drug plans than they did under Medicaid, increasing pharmaceutical companies' profits by at least $3.7 billion dollars in just the first two years of the program. For example, Bristol Myers earned a windfall of almost $400 million, thanks to higher prices for the stroke medication Plavix.

The American taxpayer has been subsidizing pharmaceutical companies for decades with the promise that the R&D we were paying for would result in lower prices and breakthrough cures. Instead, we've been stuck with higher prices (twice as much as other industrialized countries) while the pharmaceutical companies try to snag new markets overseas with what were to be our discounts.

Not only did Obama break his campaign pledge (of the government, PhRma biggest customer, negotiating for lower priced drugs, and reimporting pharmaceuticals), he gave PhRma a huge gift. The deal that Obama made with PhRma wasn't for PhRma to go up against Big Insurance; it was for PhRma to help sell a plan that makes more profits for Big Insurance.

PhRma paid chump change ($80 billion over 10 years, plus $150 million for ads to support a plan that had NO public option) so that they could keep massive profits and k!II public healthcare. Obama (who had dropped the public option and the universal requirement) let the pharmaceutical industry continue to make obscene profits, and gave the insurance industry a clear field and new customers, all paid for with taxpayers' money.

Oh, and by the way, $80 billion over 10 years is less than 1% of the profits PhRma makes a year.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their Corporate Masters.

I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party got the healthcare legislation through that the insurance industry and PhRma wanted.

Amy Goodman interviewed whistleblower Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive, yesterday:

AMY GOODMAN: But don’t the insurance companies like this legislation?

WENDELL POTTER: They do. And that’s why this will not be repealed. They like a lot about it. This legislation, we call it "healthcare reform," but it doesn’t really reform the system. There are a lot of good things in there that does make some of the practices of the insurance industry illegal, things that should have been made illegal a long time ago, so that—

AMY GOODMAN: Like?

WENDELL POTTER:—for that matter, there are good things here. But it doesn’t reform the system. It is built around our health insurance system, as the President said. And they want to keep it in place, because it also guarantees that they will have a lot of new members and billions of dollars in new revenue in the years to come.

AMY GOODMAN: How does it ensure that?

WENDELL POTTER: One of the—the core component of this—and it’s kind of ironic, but the one thing that the Republicans and conservatives are saying they want to repeal is the provision that we all have to buy coverage from private insurance companies.

AMY GOODMAN: Like we do for auto insurance.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly, right. And they’re citing or they’re saying that that’s unconstitutional. That’s also all for show, because it is just an effort to try to, in a sense, turn people away from the idea of reform. It sounds complicated, but it’s part of the insurance companies’ strategy.

Read the entire interview here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The White House, Chamber Of Commerce Attempt Rapprochement

Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party got the healthcare legislation through that the insurance industry and PhRma wanted.

Amy Goodman interviewed whistleblower Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive, yesterday:

AMY GOODMAN: But don’t the insurance companies like this legislation?

WENDELL POTTER: They do. And that’s why this will not be repealed. They like a lot about it. This legislation, we call it "healthcare reform," but it doesn’t really reform the system. There are a lot of good things in there that does make some of the practices of the insurance industry illegal, things that should have been made illegal a long time ago, so that—

AMY GOODMAN: Like?

WENDELL POTTER:—for that matter, there are good things here. But it doesn’t reform the system. It is built around our health insurance system, as the President said. And they want to keep it in place, because it also guarantees that they will have a lot of new members and billions of dollars in new revenue in the years to come.

AMY GOODMAN: How does it ensure that?

WENDELL POTTER: One of the—the core component of this—and it’s kind of ironic, but the one thing that the Republicans and conservatives are saying they want to repeal is the provision that we all have to buy coverage from private insurance companies.

AMY GOODMAN: Like we do for auto insurance.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly, right. And they’re citing or they’re saying that that’s unconstitutional. That’s also all for show, because it is just an effort to try to, in a sense, turn people away from the idea of reform. It sounds complicated, but it’s part of the insurance companies’ strategy.

Read the entire interview here.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP