The Insurance Consortium and Big Pharma are the two biggest power brokers in healthcare BY FAR!
The Public Option was an anathema to both of them. They would have poured resources into destroying it and no one can even come close to their resources.
With the Insurance Consortium the fear is obvious.
The Public Option would have forced them to tighten up all those hidden profits that are mislabeled as admin costs.
Big Pharma was fearful as well.
All providers(Insurance Companies, the VA, Medicare, etc) negotiate drug costs and more importantly preferred drugs with Pharma.
A public option would create the single largest negotiator that could dictate terms to pharma because there was always the threat of shutting a drug out.
The fact that the ACA/Obamacare has been so messy shows why it will be near impossible to pass meaningful healthcare reform. Once the political sausage making gets into a bill it is ruined.
Obama backed down and went the pragmatic way not the radical way. Just like he went with the banks.
Disingenuous my hind parts, what else would you have called it?
What was his campaign rally cry? Same? or was it Change?
Thank you for telling me how powerful the lobbying groups I mentioned were, what an absolutely pathetic argument.
Looking at this your way, I guess I have a different feeling about all of our leaders up until now, I mean they may have had to go against powerful lobbying groups to get things done.
This just in, we can no longer blame Bush for the war in the middle east, after all he was up against the lobbyists for the military industrial complex, and we all know how powerful they are.
I can no longer blame our corrupt politicians for not joining George Miller in his quest to stop allowing the financial industry to steal money from our 401k's. After all, they would have to fight the financial industry's lobbyists, and we all know how powerful they are...
My god, i miss the members of the 2008 forum too.
How can you not "believe" in Keynesian economics? I don't understand that wording... are you rejecting the basic notion of government stimulus as a means to slow an economic decline? Rejecting it as an efficient means of doing so? While I don't disagree that it is usually inefficient, the other side would be Hayek's utopian society... which is a pipe dream IMO.
Even Reagan brought the economy out of a recession using Keynesian principles (just moreso in the defense budget than infrastructure spending). Isn't that the guy that conservatives yearn for? This seems to be the strategy that Romney is moving towards although it's hard to make sense of his real views sometimes since they are constantly changing.
Here's a good article on Keynes vs. Hayek as it pertains to our modern day crisis, worth a read:
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Henry Wheeler Shaw
If im somehow misreading that, feel free to correct my assumption. In every thread. Or every time a discussion occurs that you dont particularly appreciate. Or every single time a opinion is made that doesnt support the notion that third party is the way to go.
The 2008 forum was brought up by another poster, and yes I agree with him. You know, i do not even mind the people that are honest about what they are, I mean James openly states he believes in socialism, I do not say a thing to him (usually) if only to give him a nod of respect. The support that Obama receives on this forum while we have a bunch of stated independents, or Gary Johnson supporters is truly baffling...just be honest about who you support.
You know, like whenever a right winger brings up something negative on Obama, i guess you tend to stay away from those threads?
I can show you how in a recent thread I came to Obama's defense when that right winger was way off, but that does not follow with your argument, so we will just forget that. Gotcha.
Edit to add: What the heck will a third party fix? You think I believe the insertion of a third party will fix all of our woes? A third party candidate can just as easily become a corporate whore as one from the two main parties. Partisanship is a real factor in our decline.
We need to stop supporting politicians and parties that give their financial supporters their ear more than their constituents. Also, when we have a Presidential candidate that is willing to get on board with public financing for federal candidates, i feel they should poll better than 4-5%?
Last edited by phinfan3411; 11-04-2012 at 02:21 PM.
The point i was making is: your posts almost always mention how you yearn for the "good ole days" and you directly or indirectly insult anyone who wasnt posting then. This time it was calling everyone cheerleaders and losers. Your quickly becoming "that guy". Everyone has experienced "that guy" in their life, the guy that sits at the end of the bar and bemoans how great everything used to be and complains how everything now sucks. Sometimes they talk about how they would have gone all pro had they not suffered a sprained ankle in highschool and lost their girlfriend. And no one likes that guy. Not a soul.
Fact is, had you read past the second sentence of my post, you could see how i mentioned it was alarming for either party to do this, i just focused on Republicans because they are the ones currently using filibuster as a crutch. I also pointed out that if someone wanted to make a thread concerning how Harry Reid used similar tactics under Bush, id probably agree with them though it was not nearly as bad. I will not be defending my post again on this thread just because you clearly didnt read it. Its a waste of time for me. I can bring a horse to water, but i cant make it drink.
Oh, and finally no one talked about the "2008 forum". Other then you. All mentions of 4 years ago were refering to our politicians or the political atmosphere. You're the one that changed that to mean this forum. Which brings us full circle to the point i was making. If this forum no longer meets your literary standards, stop reading it. If you want this forum to return to the way it was, go create a forum and send those posters invites. If you dont like the points i make or the posts i make, please put me and anyone else on ignore.
Do the republicans want a public option? No. To blame them in this particular circumstance is disingenuous at best, as I pointed out in my previous post.
You will see I countered your other claim in the other thread I brought back up.
As for your suggestion about what to do because of the people that post here, well, I will just wait and let nature take its course. During Bush's second term a huge portion of his supporters left, or changed screen names when it became obviously apparent his two terms were a complete failure, call it a hunch, I see the exact same thing happening again.
Of course you will say you are not going anywhere, but most will, I guess we will see if I'm right.