Clinton Urges Obama To Stand Firm On A Strong Public Option: Don’t ‘Give Up The Store’ To Get 60 Votes
Clinton Urges Obama To Stand Firm On A Strong Public Option: Don’t ‘Give Up The Store’ To Get 60 Votes
Yesterday, ThinkProgress joined a group of other progressive bloggers for a meeting with President Clinton at his office in Harlem. Clinton opened the discussion with details about his foundation work on areas such as HIV/AIDS and global warming, and the struggles he is having attracting new donors during the economic downturn.
Topics ranged from women’s rights to bridging the digital divide to the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation. Clinton also praised President Obama’s choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, saying that he thought “it was a good thing.” “Not just because she’s a woman, and Puerto Rican, and I know her and like her, and appointed her to the court…but I think it says that we’re going forward,” he said.
But some of his most extensive comments came on the subject of health care. Clinton said that due to political and economic conditions, Obama has a far better chance of passing health care than he did in 1993:
They’ve got a much different psychological and political landscape on which to operate. [...] Second, because of the current economic conditions, they don’t have the budget constraints I did. Keep in mind, I had just passed a budget in which we raised taxes on the wealthy, cut taxes on the working poor, and were on track to reducing the deficit, and there was no – we couldn’t raise taxes again. So when I had an employer-mandate, that in effect, guaranteed that the health insurance companies would be joined by the small business community – at least the organized small business community – which made it harder to pass.
Thirdly, he does not have a Republican leader who’s running for president. Bill Kristol sent Bob Dole a letter saying, “I know you like health care and I know you want to compromise with Bill Clinton” — which he told me he would do – “but if you let him pass anything, Democrats will be a majority for a generation. You’ve got to beat it off.” [...]
And finally – and most important of all – everything is worse now. The difference – the spread – in our spending and other people’s spending in ‘93, ‘94, was 14 percent of GDP on health care for us, 10 percent for our next highest competitor, Canada. Now the spread is 16 ½ to 11.
Clinton said that he believes Obama will work with the Senate to achieve the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. But he urged Obama to be ready to use the budget reconciliation process — which would require just 51 votes to pass health care — if necessary to achieve a progressive bill:
If he can’t get a good bill, I wouldn’t give away the store on that. If he can’t get a bill that’s genuine universal coverage, that genuinely is going to cut costs and make health insurers give up some of these unbelievable administrative burdens that they’ve put on people, and that really gets to the guts of the delivery system and does more primary preventive care and actually measures things that work, then I would go for the 51. But I would spend a little time trying to get to 60.
Listen here:
Other bloggers at yesterday’s meeting were Chris Bowers of Open Left, who has a post up about Clinton’s climate change remarks; Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money, who has a summary of the discussion; and nyceve of Daily Kos and Laurie Edwards of A Chronic Dose of Reality, both of whom reported on Clinton’s health care remarks.
Transcript:
CLINTON: First of all, one of the things I worry about with Congress is – You know that old parable about once a cat sits on a hot stove, the problem is it will never sit on a cold stove either? So you tend to assume that whatever the political landmines were in ‘93, ‘94 – when we were doing this – still exist.
Let me back up and say, when the Democrats won the Congress in 2006, the morning after the election I told Hillary – I said, “I don’t care what the mainstream, conventional wisdom is. You know, unless we nominate a bank robber, the nominee of the Democratic party will be the next president.” Because America has now – Mostly because starting in ‘98, we had heavy majority support for not only the performance of the administration, but basically for the philosophy of – it wasn’t necessarily more left, it was more communitarian, the idea that we had to go forward together. That we couldn’t stand this level of inequality, we couldn’t stand this level of social division.
SPEAKER: Common good.
CLINTON: Yeah. And that began to be the operative mode of America. It was truncated by 9/11. Even in 2002, you go back and look at the New York Times survey. … It was three weeks before the election. It said that undecided voters by a 20-something percent margin, other things being equal, would like to vote for a Democrat for Congress because they thought the Bush administration was going to far to the right. The only reason they won seats in 2002 was because they made up that homeland security issue. It was just made up out of whole cloth.
Then in 2004, President Bush won re-election, but it was the smallest victory margin of any president re-elected since Woodrow Wilson in 1916 before World War I, and no wartime president had ever been defeated. In 2006, when the Democrats won, we were out of this 9/11 straight-jacket – emotional straight-jacket. And finally, we had seen what the consequences of what had been advocated, in terms of cultural divisions, since Nixon’s election in ‘68; in terms of economic and social divisions since Reagan’s election in ‘80. Those guys all got a free ride because the Democrats in Congress blocked what they wanted to do. We never got to see how it would work until President Bush got a Republican Congress. So we then became more communitarian.
Therefore, President Obama and the Congress – they need to know this. They’ve got a much different psychological and political landscape on which to operate. It doesn’t mean that people still aren’t skeptical of government, it doesn’t mean that people still can’t buy into these other arguments. But it’s a different landscape. First.
Second, because of the current economic conditions, they don’t have the budget constraints I did. Keep in mind, I had just passed a budget in which we raised taxes on the wealthy, cut taxes on the working poor, and were on track to reducing the deficit, and there was no – we couldn’t raise taxes again. So when I had an employer-mandate, that in effect, guaranteed that the health insurance companies would be joined by the small business community – at least the organized small business community – which made it harder to pass.
Thirdly, he does not have a Republican leader who’s running for president. Bill Kristol sent Bob Dole a letter saying, “I know you like health care and I know you want to compromise with Bill Clinton” — which he told me he would do – “but if you let him pass anything, Democrats will be a majority for a generation. You’ve got to beat it off.” And then we just had an automatic filibuster for everything. So you don’t have any of that; all that stuff’s gone.
And finally – and most important of all – everything is worse now. The difference – the spread – in our spending and other people’s spending in ‘93, ‘94, was 14 percent of GDP on health care for us, 10 percent for our next highest competitor, Canada. Now the spread is 16 ½ to 11. That’s $800 billion a year that we’re just throwing away because we’re not getting – Nobody else insures less than 100 percent. We’ve got what, 45 million people uninsured?
SPEAKER: 50.
CLINTON: 50. Whatever it is. Huge number. And we don’t get better health outcomes; we get worse health outcomes. So it’s all worse. [...]
Even the health insurance companies say they’ve got to try to [pass it], number one. Number two, the small business community is not a guaranteed opposition. Number three, the American Medical Association says they’re against a public plan, but that’s because they think they get underpaid for Medicare and Medicaid. We’ll come back to that. And number four, we’ve got a more modern, more supportive Congress. So I think all that argues that we could get universal coverage. But the problem is, they’ve got to change the delivery system enough to get costs down so that we’ll still have universal coverage five years from now.
Keep in mind we have to examine this health care thing in light of all – And let me just say, I strongly supported the President’s stimulus program and the general outlines of what they’re trying to do on housing, and financing, and automobiles, and everything else. But because President Bush – because of the recession and because President Bush passed all those tax cuts for upper-income people like me, which I opposed – we had to borrow the money to do all this. And that’s why you see – I don’t know if you’ve been watching this, but the interest rates are creeping back up now, and people may be more reluctant to buy our debt, so that’s why President Obama went to Green Bay, WI, which has a good health care delivery system and is getting better results at lower costs to do it. [...]
The other thing that people keep talking about is how complicated my bill was. You know, there’s a reason President Obama hasn’t presented a bill here. The fact is, my bill replaced hundreds of more pages of federal law than it added. It was a net simplification of the current system. The current system looks like Rube Goldberg on steroids. And so – But he’s not going to have to worry about – I think we’re going to get past the filibuster, and I think they’ll be tough enough to go to 51 votes. But they would prefer, for his long-term relationships with Congress, it would be better if we could get the 60 votes. So what I think they’ll do is go for the 60, but if it seems that people are just dug in taking positions that don’t make any sense, then I think they’ll go back to plan B. That would be my preference, because he’s got to think about what it’s going to be like next year, and the year after, and the year after, and all of that.
CHART: Wouldn’t it be nice to win one of these once in awhile?
CLINTON: What?
CHART: Wouldn’t it be nice to just win, instead of thinking about the 60 votes and the relationships?
CLINTON: No, no. I think he will win. If he can’t get a good bill, I wouldn’t give away the store on that. If he can’t get a bill that’s genuine universal coverage, that genuinely is going to cut costs and make health insurers give up some of these unbelievable administrative burdens that they’ve put on people, and that really gets to the guts of the delivery system and does more primary preventive care and actually measures things that work, then I would go for the 51. But I would spend a little time trying to get to 60.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Clinton Urges Obama To Stand Firm On A Strong Public Option: Don’t ‘Give Up The Store’ To Get 60 Votes
That’s what every progressive has been saying from Day 1 ….
June 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pmIt’s very scary that people are WILLING to give the govt control of health care funds. Have you all not been spanked enough by these crooks?
Name 1 govt agency that is run efficiently?
Think health-care will be any different? If you do, I have some ocean front property in nashville i’ll sell ya dirt cheap!
June 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pmskarecro Says:
——————————————————————————–
It’s very scary that people are WILLING to give the govt control of health care funds. Have you all not been spanked enough by these crooks?
Name 1 govt agency that is run efficiently?
Think health-care will be any different? If you do, I have some ocean front property in nashville i’ll sell ya dirt cheap!
June 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Yeah , because we all know how trustworthy insurance companies are , don’t we , tool ?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pmskarecro Says:
Name 1 govt agency that is run efficiently?
####
Police, fire, electricity, postal, etc. Oh – you asked for just one? Would you privatize police, fire, electricity, and get rid of public schools?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pmPolice
June 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pmFire
Military
Roads
Schools (when right wingers aren’t undermining it with holy roller nonsense)
Dammit, Obama, we want you to be a PROGRESSIVE leader! The Repigs are in a weakened state, the country wants and needs real change. Get off the pot and DO IT! Stop kiss the collective a$$es of the economic royalists and govern for the people. We are the grass roots who got you elected, and you’re allowing corporate America to keep using Roundup and Liquid Edger on all of us. Do you really think you’ll get a second term if you continue to allow the middle class to be screwed like this???
June 16th, 2009 at 2:42 pmskarecro Says:
It’s very scary that people are WILLING to give the govt control of health care funds. Have you all not been spanked enough by these crooks?
We’re being spanked a lot harder by the insurance companies. At least the gubmint doesn’t put nails in the board they spank us with.
.
skarecro Says:
Name 1 govt agency that is run efficiently?
England’s health care system, just off the top of my head.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pmbut if you let him pass anything, Democrats will be a majority for a generation.
Exactly. It has nothing to do with actually giving a damn that 1 out of 6 Americans have no healthcare. It has nothing to do with controlling the soaring cost of healthcare that has become an undue burden on the people. It has to do with keeping power.
The last thing they want is for the Democrats to have been right about something, and they know good and well that they’re right about this.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pmEfficient government-run agencies:
Post Office – if only industry ran as well and as cheap as the post office.
Schools – provide for the common good, and still allow competition from private industry.
Police/Fire/EMT services – we should all be more than glad that they are run for the public good instead of for profit.
Armed Services – do you have the balls to claim these guys don’t know efficiency?
Would you like me to go on?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pmGovernment is only efficient to the degree that Republicans are allowed to participate in it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pmYes, the police are very efficient at violating your rights and tazing you for questioning their godhood.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pmAIG, a private insurer, cost the taxpayer 180+ billion.
How is that efficient?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pmMr Clinton……..It’s time for the Dems , who have a majority in both Houses , to do what’s right and good for America and the American people , and not what’s acceptable in DC circles ; people are tired of this type of useless stupid shit ………
June 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pmAlso
What have you been smoking, skarcro, that has allowed you to ignore the multiple, adamant, and crystal clear statements from the administration that this IS NOT government-run healthcare. How stupid do you have to be to still not get it?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pmEndTheGOP Says:
Dammit, Obama, we want you to be a PROGRESSIVE leader!
Amen! Amen! Amen to that! Republicans equate civility and compromise with weakness. They are begining to smell blood in the water, and like every good predator they’re zooming in for the kill!!!
Dear Mr. President, please show some COJONES!
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pmI saw military in there.
That’s awesomely hilarious.
Your saying the Pentagon is run efficiently? The thing that “misplaced” $2.3 trillion before 9/11. The thing that builds F-22s for 4 times what they should cost so that every congressional district gets a piece of the pie. I could go on and on, but wow, using the military as an example of an efficiently run government agency is just, wow.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pmskarecro Says: Name 1 govt agency that is run efficiently?
First, that’s a declarative sentence, not a question, so close with a period.
Second, government agencies can run efficiently if you’d quit trying to drown the government in a bathtub.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pmHow is bailing out, for 787 billion [actually its 12.8 trillion in loans, bailouts and committments] banks, who approached government for bailouts, a show of efficiency?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pmIt wouldn’t have if the bailout had failed like it did the first time.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pmHell no the military isn’t run efficiently. The Armed Services are highly efficient, but the military is more about selling out to no-bid contracts now, which shoots any appearance of efficiency directly in the foot.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pmEfficient?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pmReg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pmAttendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace – shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there’s one. But otherwise, we’re solid.
Oops, got #9 backwards. Meant to say: Government is only inefficient to the degree that Republicans are allowed to participate in it.
They intentionally mess everything up whenever they can and then blame the mess on government itself.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pmPublic schools have to be one of the least efficient government entities. The cost per student is ridiculous compared to tuition paid at most private schools. And, if you listen to the Dept. of Ed recently, US kids are falling behind again.
Yes. This is the biggest, fattest bloated bureaucracy in the government.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pmWere talking health insurance skarecro, not health care
June 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pm@Alejandro
Which is precisely why we should be more than happy that they aren’t a for-profit industry. It would be horribly worse.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pmsmidget Says:
Which is precisely why we should be more than happy that they aren’t a for-profit industry. It would be horribly worse.
For-profit: We’ll use Chinese cheap-o parts in order to under-bid the competition. Woohoo!
Gov’t-run: We’ll charge the American taxpayers $40,000 for 20 toilets. Woohoo!
Frankly, I don’t know which one is worse.
I think either solution could be equally good, provided there is adequate supervision.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pmKids in the US are falling behind because the educational system has been allowed to deteriorate.
But, since you’re so smart, provide a better option, with no governmental intervention whatsoever, that allows every single citizen to get a free education. We’ll wait.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pmUmmmm , actually , the military industrial complex is a for-profit industry ; just ask Cheney/Halliburton ………
June 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pmWhen I was young my mother was a volunteer for John Kennedy’s 1960 election campaign. I used to hang at the office with mom after school. One day a man walked into the office and started spouting that that Kennedy and Democrats are socialists. Mom asked the man, do you pay property taxes to support the schools. The man replied yes and said he was proud to pay his share to support the schools. Mom said that this was socialism. The man promptly shut up and left. I remember this everytime Republicans play the socialism card, they have been doing this for 50 years that I know of.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm@Luis
I was referring to Alejandro’s comment re: the police.
Proper supervision and transparency are vital. Lack of both are the REASON government isn’t efficient much of the time. Hence the $40,000 toilet seats. If you think all that money really went for toilet seat, you’re more guillable than Limbaugh’s audience.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pmsmidget Says:
but if you let him pass anything, Democrats will be a majority for a generation.
Exactly. It has nothing to do with actually giving a damn that 1 out of 6 Americans have no healthcare. It has nothing to do with controlling the soaring cost of healthcare that has become an undue burden on the people. It has to do with keeping power.
The last thing they want is for the Democrats to have been right about something, and they know good and well that they’re right about this.
————————
Can’t Michelle sit obama down and tell him that the repubs hate him more than they love the country. yesterday mccain wanted to attack iran (thank goodness he’s not president) now today the GOP won’t fund the troops… what are they gonna fight with ’spitballs? (ala zell miller).
Obama has to realize that the more the repubs make noise, the better it is for the country!
June 16th, 2009 at 3:15 pmHow is efficient a system where a doctor must be member of a couple of insurance nets to make a living, pushing a different bureaucracy for every insurance company to ask permission for a procedure and then, maybe, bill the insurance company using another set of bureaucracy, and then wait a couple of months to receive the money, or not? Why must professionals divert so much money to manage bureaucracy?
In the other end, workers only can buy the insurance their employer suggests, or pay a far higher amount to have equivalent services.
Frankly, if that’s efficient… I think Americans have a problem discerning between freedom and micromanaging.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pmsmidget Says:
Proper supervision and transparency are vital. Lack of both are the REASON government isn’t efficient much of the time. Hence the $40,000 toilet seats.
I completely agree, but as I said, I think that it applies equally to either public or privately owned services.
If you think all that money really went for toilet seat, you’re more guillable than Limbaugh’s audience.
Hey, I know it didn’t all went to the toilet seat makers. I’m sure part of it is being used right now to study alien spacecrafts in Area 51 (and also in making computer viruses that run in alien Operating Systems). Hmm, that would make a great movie.
Limbaugh’s audience? Brrr! Perish the thought!
June 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pmHell yea! Let’s get a realy reform bill! None of that sissy, private company competition crap! They have had years to compete and the prices have only gone up and up and up!
June 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pm“You’ve got to beat it off.”
Fine advice from enormous WANKER, Billy Kristol!
June 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pmAnother link I’ll have to look up but I think it was a guest on the Ed Show discussing why the budget reconciliation process wouldn’t get us everything we want for health care. It didn’t sound like the budget reconciliation was going to go well with a public plan but obviously I’ll need to find my source before commenting further.
I just want these costs to go down already. I’m sick of paying $200 for my nerve pain meds (military only wants to cover my Vicodin) and $500 a piece for the eight ER visits I average a year. The sad thing is that’s nothing compared to some prices people I know are paying.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:24 pmMedicare spends 2% of total payments to providers on administrative expenses while the ratio of administrative expenses to payments for private insurers is “typically over 15%” according to economist, Dean Baker.
#2. Case closed.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:28 pmAlejandro,
June 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pmPrivate schools can spend less because they can kick out the slow learners and the emotionally disturbed students.Public schools have to deal with all types of students and some very crazy parents.It takes a lot of extra personnel to deal with some of the students the private schools dump.Private schools don’t have to provide physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and personal aides.
Alejandro Says:
Public schools have to be one of the least efficient government entities. The cost per student is ridiculous compared to tuition paid at most private schools.
Citation for outrageous claim? Oh wait, you’re a wingnut. All of your data comes from your imagination.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:39 pmI was humored to the out of date text being used at an expensive private school near me by the uncertified biology instructor…
June 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pmI have always been amazed that people vote and act against their self interest. It would be interesting to know how many people who have no health insurance are against Obama’s health care reform. I think this is not a small number. It is the trick Republicans play, bringing up social issues that really don’t effect the lives of the people who are whipped into a fever over issues in which they have no stake. How many anti-gay marriage people even know any gay people, I would suspect many do not, if they did they would see them as individuals worthy of equal rights. Another example is abortion, Republican’s have been railing against abortion rights for how many years, and in all that time has a constitutional amendment ever been proposed by a Republican President? While many people have heart felt beliefs against abortion, those people have been manipulated into thinking Republican will do something about it, but never have. If abortion were settled, those people would move on to other issues and some would drift away from the GOP. It is all about distraction with the Republicans. This financial crisis is another example, too much spending they rage, but when Bush was spending not a peep.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm@Luis
I wasn’t insinuating that you actually thought that, nor would I hint that you are, indeed, more guillable than Limbaugh’s audience (that was a bit of a zinger, though…my bad).
I figure the spare money is in the same place that the “missing” money referenced earlier is.
A lot of the issues with the healthcare industry, aside from the obvious failures that we have all dealt with, stem from the fact that it is a for-profit industry. There’s a reason that some things are left to the government, and it’s not because it’s the most efficient way to do it, it’s because it’s the most accessible way to do it. People need an education, so we have public schools. Private schools compete with them, and you’re welcome to send your kids to one, but because the public ones exist, everyone has access to an education. Healthcare is no less important, and everyone should have access.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:03 pmoldgranny
EXACTLY and the kids who are dyslexic or have ADD. They have a right to a public education but private schools dont have to take them so they dont have to pay the special ed teachers. Then we test and the rightwing can say see, private education does it better and cheaper. This is an attempt to destroy public education
June 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pmI find the tuition issue to be skewed. In 2006 the amount of public funding, state, federal and local sources to be 521 billion. If that is divided by the population of America at about 300 million thats 1,736 dollars per person per year for public education [2006] for grades 1-12 [some states have public kindergarten] Texas, for one state, doesnt have state tax that comes out of your paycheck but a percantage, 8cents, comes out of each dollar spent [except on food items such as milk, cheese, meat, bread etc etc]
And federal tax comes from many areas as well, such as gasoline[18 cents a gallon] etc etc.
So that 1,736 yearly doesnt come directly out of your pocket but from consuming goods, business etc.
Lets say you are a typical family, two parents two or three kids.
Thats less than 3500 a year for two kids to be educated.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:20 pmYou don’t hear politicians with government health insurance complaining about it…
…no you don’t, I have never heard one complaint from anyone who has government healthcare…
…ever….case closed.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThe private tuition is, on average over $3200 year per child.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pmThese days I find myself wishing Hillary were President instead of Obama. Obama does not lead. He does not rub his opponents the wrong way. He does not govern. He seeks compromise and middle ground with vicious extremists here in our own government.
I doubt Hillary would have done that, and she would have learned from BILL’S mistakes, too.
I also find myself wishing Obama had made her HHS Secretary instead of Secretary of State. Sure, the State job has all the prestige and power, but the idea is to best serve the American people. It just doesn’t pack the same punch to have Hillary commenting from State about universal health care.
I know, I know…I’m wishing for ponies. Don’t jump my sh*t too hard, Obama luvers. Wishing; that’s what comments are for SOMETIMES, ain’t they?
;-)
June 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThe way our society is structured, with people making poverty [about 19k a year] wages [like min wage] 3200+ a year for private tuition isnt feasible.
Vouchers wouldnt lower taxes, or save the government money. It does give people an option, like a public option health insurance plan would
June 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pmEugeneDebs sed:
“This is an attempt to destroy public education…”
Amen, bruh. My wife is a reading specialist in a public school. Her entire family works or worked in public education–teachers, administrator, vice principal, etc. They know what works, and vouchers ain’t it, no matter how many happy stories about chartered schools, etc, make the media.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:27 pmskarecro, I’ll buy that property from you. One of us is wilfully blind, and it ain’t me.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pmVouchers are just a way to privatize public funds and like the MIC they would soon find a way to overcharge the govt thru a voucher system
June 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pmThank you President Clinton. Now I just hope that President Obama listens to you.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pmskarecro Says:
It’s very scary that people are WILLING to give the govt control of health care funds. Have you all not been spanked enough by these crooks?
Name 1 govt agency that is run efficiently?
We already have government health care. It’s called Medicare. And Medicare operates with a 4% overhead whereas for-profit health insurance operates at at 40% overhead.
And don’t come back and say that Medicare is in financial trouble. The only reason why Medicare is getting into financial trouble is because the baby boomers are hitting the system.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:56 pmAlejandro Says:
Yes, the police are very efficient at violating your rights and tazing you for questioning their godhood.
And do you think that a privatized police force would be less likely to do these kind of things? Do you really want Blackwater mercenaries running our police departments?
June 16th, 2009 at 4:59 pmAlejandro Says:
I saw military in there.
That’s awesomely hilarious.
Your saying the Pentagon is run efficiently? The thing that “misplaced” $2.3 trillion before 9/11. The thing that builds F-22s for 4 times what they should cost so that every congressional district gets a piece of the pie. I could go on and on, but wow, using the military as an example of an efficiently run government agency is just, wow.
The military was run efficiently up until the time that Bush privatized much of it. Once Bush started giving out no-bid billion dollar contracts for KBR to do what the military had done forever before, that’s when our money going to the military started going down a black hole.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:10 pmDaddy-O Says:
These days I find myself wishing Hillary were President instead of Obama. Obama does not lead.
Well Daddy-O, you’re not alone. I was a rabid Obama supporter. Donated more money and volunteered more hours of work to his campaign than anyone else I know. But I AM beginning to wonder if it was a mistake!
June 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pmBill Clinton is very right about this. He was very wrong about the trade agreements that gave away our store. But he is right about this.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pmYour “Democrats” will predictably dissappoint you, because they are not Democrats. There will be nothing good to come out of any healthcare “reform” until we have real lobbyist and campaign finance reform.
Lots of big talk, but the bribes will stop any significant action.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:02 pmkrystalview Says:
Well Daddy-O, you’re not alone. I was a rabid Obama supporter. Donated more money and volunteered more hours of work to his campaign than anyone else I know. But I AM beginning to wonder if it was a mistake!
The thing is, it’s easy to play would-could-shoulda. What if Hillary had won, but was stalling and playing wishy-wash as much as Obama is now? We’d be saying the same thing, just the other way around.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:16 pm