New Developments III
What a fascinating and thoughtful analysis, Mister Tee. I really look forward to your political commentary.
I was at Michele Norris' (NPR) birthday party on Saturday night and was discussing the very same idea with Gwen Ifill who, by the way, shares a similar view re: Obama. The idea that he's sacrificing immediate gratification for the bigger legislative picture seems much more in line with his campaign goals.
Not for nothing, I also had three helpings of Gwen's peach cobbler (with a much-lauded secret ingredient) and it was one of the most heavenly things I've ever tasted.
Edited By flipp525 on 1252437048
I was at Michele Norris' (NPR) birthday party on Saturday night and was discussing the very same idea with Gwen Ifill who, by the way, shares a similar view re: Obama. The idea that he's sacrificing immediate gratification for the bigger legislative picture seems much more in line with his campaign goals.
Not for nothing, I also had three helpings of Gwen's peach cobbler (with a much-lauded secret ingredient) and it was one of the most heavenly things I've ever tasted.
Edited By flipp525 on 1252437048
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Okay, okay, I'll lighten up. But a few more things I'll throw in:
Everyone does realize the glorification of Harry Truman is 100% post-facto revisionism? Truman was widely considered a buffoon by even many in his party -- ESPECIALLY the far left, who abandoned him for Henry Wallace in 1948 -- and left office in 1953 the most widely-despised president since Hoover. (Remember all those records for low poll standing Bush surpassed? They were Truman's) It's nice for the Truman family that David McCullough took it upon himself to refurbish his reputation (as he also tried, unconvincingly in my view, to whitewash John Adams' support for the Alien and Sedition Act), but to jump from that to "A president who acts like Truman will get the country rallied behind him" defies scholarship.
I get the feeling from reading many here that you think Obama's a moron -- that he's somehow not noticed the Republicans are obstructionist swine. I think the chances he's missed this are infinitesimal. So, I assume he's playing a different game. As I see it, he's giving these lunatics enough rope to hang themselves, to move the middle firmly and substantially into the Democratic column the same way they moved to the GOP in reaction to Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis 40 years ago. This is building a base upon which the party can stand for the next decade or two. That Obama has seemed, if anything, overly reasonable with them so far only estabishes his bona fides for the time when (as I believe is inevitable) he forges ahead with a fully Democratic plan health care plan. And, again, I remind everyone: no final votes have been taken. Till then, everything that's said is (to use a Truman-ism) pure eyewash.
Bottom line: Many on the left seem to want the emotional satisfaction of seeing the right -- if not the entire GOP -- told off now. Obama prefers the greater-term satisfaction of country-changing legislation, and believes that cause is best served by holding his fire. We'll find out sometime this year which approach had more validity.
Everyone does realize the glorification of Harry Truman is 100% post-facto revisionism? Truman was widely considered a buffoon by even many in his party -- ESPECIALLY the far left, who abandoned him for Henry Wallace in 1948 -- and left office in 1953 the most widely-despised president since Hoover. (Remember all those records for low poll standing Bush surpassed? They were Truman's) It's nice for the Truman family that David McCullough took it upon himself to refurbish his reputation (as he also tried, unconvincingly in my view, to whitewash John Adams' support for the Alien and Sedition Act), but to jump from that to "A president who acts like Truman will get the country rallied behind him" defies scholarship.
I get the feeling from reading many here that you think Obama's a moron -- that he's somehow not noticed the Republicans are obstructionist swine. I think the chances he's missed this are infinitesimal. So, I assume he's playing a different game. As I see it, he's giving these lunatics enough rope to hang themselves, to move the middle firmly and substantially into the Democratic column the same way they moved to the GOP in reaction to Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis 40 years ago. This is building a base upon which the party can stand for the next decade or two. That Obama has seemed, if anything, overly reasonable with them so far only estabishes his bona fides for the time when (as I believe is inevitable) he forges ahead with a fully Democratic plan health care plan. And, again, I remind everyone: no final votes have been taken. Till then, everything that's said is (to use a Truman-ism) pure eyewash.
Bottom line: Many on the left seem to want the emotional satisfaction of seeing the right -- if not the entire GOP -- told off now. Obama prefers the greater-term satisfaction of country-changing legislation, and believes that cause is best served by holding his fire. We'll find out sometime this year which approach had more validity.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19343
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Geez, Tee, lighten up already. I was being facetious but, really, Obama ought to stop trying to walk the middle of the road and act like the full blown liberal he is at heart. The sub-morons on the right are are going to continue to paint him that way no matter what he does anyway. The attacks this past week on something as benign as his welcome back address to students, something started by Reagan and Bush Sr., is a prime example. A little of "Give 'em Hell Harry" would do him a world of good but it isn't going to happen, certainly not in his address Wednesday night.Mister Tee wrote:Magilla, I'm sorry, I think your "If Obama doesn't walk on water this week, Hillary will destroy him" is completely absurd -- Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult it is to achieve results where health care is concerned; I also think she knows such a move would fracture the Democratic party 60s style, and she's too shrewd to put herself in position to be blamed for that. And as far as "It'll be over for Obama" -- Jesus Christ, Clinton lost both houses of Congress in '94 and came back to easy re-election. Snap judgments on presidencies are for amateurs; take a longer view.
taki15 wrote:Heksagon wrote: Is this article available online? Klein writes for Time, right?
Klein's Article.
Apparently his commenters too are unable to verify or refute Klein's assesment, they just resort to name-calling and general bashing.
Thanks.
Right now:--I am VERY glad to be in Canada under a sensible health reform. The number of times I have been in the hospital, needed medications, needed CTs scans or others, doctors' visits, etc. over the past 7 months has not cost ME a penny.
This is not to say that our system is perfect. There are people clamouring for emergent care in some areas of this vast province( larger than WA,OR, CA joined together); our provincial conservative government, in order to meet these new economic stresses, feels it is OK to cut services in order to save money.
We are lucky: we live 10 minutes from a hospital, and if one goes to emergency and you are serious enough you get immediate care. We are fortunate we don't live in the boonies.
If I had had to pay for all the services I have had over these months, and gone to the States, all of what I have gone through would have broken us, and we would have had to sell to stay alive, and I am supposed to be dead within the year. A friend in Seattle estimated what my care would cost there and it amounted to $146,000US.
I will be watching US news all this week. If only Obama would get it though his head that his "bipartsianship" and a friendly hand out to these Repugnants( as Damien has called them), when all they want to do is scare the public that can be easily swayed, and you get the kind of remark made by a woman from Virginia: "I don't think I want my child hearing all this socialist propaganda". They want to drive the black guy out.
I want all of you out there fighting for the older people--those on fixed incomes: they are the ones who cannot afford health care, but will benefit from his plan.
Edited By cam on 1252374238
This is not to say that our system is perfect. There are people clamouring for emergent care in some areas of this vast province( larger than WA,OR, CA joined together); our provincial conservative government, in order to meet these new economic stresses, feels it is OK to cut services in order to save money.
We are lucky: we live 10 minutes from a hospital, and if one goes to emergency and you are serious enough you get immediate care. We are fortunate we don't live in the boonies.
If I had had to pay for all the services I have had over these months, and gone to the States, all of what I have gone through would have broken us, and we would have had to sell to stay alive, and I am supposed to be dead within the year. A friend in Seattle estimated what my care would cost there and it amounted to $146,000US.
I will be watching US news all this week. If only Obama would get it though his head that his "bipartsianship" and a friendly hand out to these Repugnants( as Damien has called them), when all they want to do is scare the public that can be easily swayed, and you get the kind of remark made by a woman from Virginia: "I don't think I want my child hearing all this socialist propaganda". They want to drive the black guy out.
I want all of you out there fighting for the older people--those on fixed incomes: they are the ones who cannot afford health care, but will benefit from his plan.
Edited By cam on 1252374238
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Sonic, the reason I said what I did is, those quotes from administration officials had preceded your earlier post. That you put up this recent one ("It's sure looking more and more like they got this one right, doesn't it?") seemed to suggest that there'd been developments to back up your dark suspicions...and the only ones of which I was aware were unattributed quotes from unreliable journalists, quotes which have never been confirmed by anyone in a position of power but over which nonethless many lefty bloggers have been clutching their pearls for the last two weeks. If you have some on the record material that shows conclusively Obama is collapsing to the right on this issue, please share.
I'm afraid we (and I have to include you in this, too, Magilla) just have very different views of what's going on right now. This process can't be driven right now, except at the margins, by presidential decree; it has to go through the often-ugly Congressional legislative system. In that vein, it doesn't matter how much, how little or in what form Obama pumps for the public option at this point, if there aren't the votes to get it through this process. And as far as making long-term judgments on success or failure...as of now, there is no bill -- or, put better, there are many bills, four of which have already been passed containing this public option. The sticking point for now is getting ANY bill past the Senate Finance committee, a sine qua non of any such bill, and that committee has been by far the most conservative of any to have considered the issue. I'll freely concede, it will likely not include the public option in what it passes.
But this has, if not nothing, then nothing definitive to say about what's in the final bill. Because once something gets through Senate Finance -- and few doubt something will -- the various bills go to a House/Senate conference, where a composite will be put together. And it's there -- in the process of negotiation -- that the final details will be made clear (also where we'll find out whether we'll be going the 50-not-60 reconcliation route or not). It would be foolish for Obama to have shot his wad prior to the beginning of this process...however satisfying it would have been for fired-up liberals who (unrealistically) want to ramrod through the system.
This is why I say I'll wait till something actually happens. Everything else is rhetoric and rumor; I make my judgments based on factual outcomes. To answer Sonic's snide question about Bush and the war...no, I didn't give him benefit of doubt there, because he'd already shown himself to be a lying sack of shit over and over by then. Obama, by contrast, has been proclaimed, at various points over the past two years (by these same reporters and their anonymous sources) to be collapsing/caving, and has always emerged successful. So I believe he at least deserves a patient verdict.
Magilla, I'm sorry, I think your "If Obama doesn't walk on water this week, Hillary will destroy him" is completely absurd -- Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult it is to achieve results where health care is concerned; I also think she knows such a move would fracture the Democratic party 60s style, and she's too shrewd to put herself in position to be blamed for that. And as far as "It'll be over for Obama" -- Jesus Christ, Clinton lost both houses of Congress in '94 and came back to easy re-election. Snap judgments on presidencies are for amateurs; take a longer view.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1252351824
I'm afraid we (and I have to include you in this, too, Magilla) just have very different views of what's going on right now. This process can't be driven right now, except at the margins, by presidential decree; it has to go through the often-ugly Congressional legislative system. In that vein, it doesn't matter how much, how little or in what form Obama pumps for the public option at this point, if there aren't the votes to get it through this process. And as far as making long-term judgments on success or failure...as of now, there is no bill -- or, put better, there are many bills, four of which have already been passed containing this public option. The sticking point for now is getting ANY bill past the Senate Finance committee, a sine qua non of any such bill, and that committee has been by far the most conservative of any to have considered the issue. I'll freely concede, it will likely not include the public option in what it passes.
But this has, if not nothing, then nothing definitive to say about what's in the final bill. Because once something gets through Senate Finance -- and few doubt something will -- the various bills go to a House/Senate conference, where a composite will be put together. And it's there -- in the process of negotiation -- that the final details will be made clear (also where we'll find out whether we'll be going the 50-not-60 reconcliation route or not). It would be foolish for Obama to have shot his wad prior to the beginning of this process...however satisfying it would have been for fired-up liberals who (unrealistically) want to ramrod through the system.
This is why I say I'll wait till something actually happens. Everything else is rhetoric and rumor; I make my judgments based on factual outcomes. To answer Sonic's snide question about Bush and the war...no, I didn't give him benefit of doubt there, because he'd already shown himself to be a lying sack of shit over and over by then. Obama, by contrast, has been proclaimed, at various points over the past two years (by these same reporters and their anonymous sources) to be collapsing/caving, and has always emerged successful. So I believe he at least deserves a patient verdict.
Magilla, I'm sorry, I think your "If Obama doesn't walk on water this week, Hillary will destroy him" is completely absurd -- Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult it is to achieve results where health care is concerned; I also think she knows such a move would fracture the Democratic party 60s style, and she's too shrewd to put herself in position to be blamed for that. And as far as "It'll be over for Obama" -- Jesus Christ, Clinton lost both houses of Congress in '94 and came back to easy re-election. Snap judgments on presidencies are for amateurs; take a longer view.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1252351824
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19343
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
The whole thing is confusing.
A public option is not a panacea, but it does seem like the surest way to force insurance companies to cut costs. If there is a viable alternative, fine, but no one has come up with one. But how exactly would the public option be structured? Hopefully better than Medicare. The key, aside from eliminating greed, which is impossible to legislate, is for both private and public health care to cut back on the paperwork that accounts for most of the overhead.
What is most perplexing to me is the opposition of "seniors", a ridiculous grouping of people aged 65 and over. That grouping may have made sense in the 1930s when people tended to not live much longer than their 65th birthday but with modern medicine keeping large numbers of people alive well into their 80s and 90s there is a big difference between those in the 65-74 range, those in the 75-84 range and those who are older both in the way they think and the medical coverage they require.
Catastrophic illness can strike at any age, but is more likely the older you get. You can retire early as I did and pay reasonable insurance rates until you turn 65 but once you reach that milestone you are put in an insurance pool with everyone that age and beyond. Your insurance doubles overnight.
Medicare costs a base rate of $94 per month deducted from your Social Security check, but for every dollar you earn over a certain amount from other sources based on your tax return of two years earlier, your cost for Medicare increases. Medicare's benefits are limited. I don't know anyone who can survive on Medicare alone. You have to have a supplemental insurance plan to cover Medicare's cost prohibitive deductibles. Those plans aren't cheap. Yet a large percentage of "seniors" want to maintain the status quo. My guess is if they were to breakdown the "senior" polling by the age groups I mentioned you would find most of the opposition is from those over 75, maybe even 85.
A public option is not a panacea, but it does seem like the surest way to force insurance companies to cut costs. If there is a viable alternative, fine, but no one has come up with one. But how exactly would the public option be structured? Hopefully better than Medicare. The key, aside from eliminating greed, which is impossible to legislate, is for both private and public health care to cut back on the paperwork that accounts for most of the overhead.
What is most perplexing to me is the opposition of "seniors", a ridiculous grouping of people aged 65 and over. That grouping may have made sense in the 1930s when people tended to not live much longer than their 65th birthday but with modern medicine keeping large numbers of people alive well into their 80s and 90s there is a big difference between those in the 65-74 range, those in the 75-84 range and those who are older both in the way they think and the medical coverage they require.
Catastrophic illness can strike at any age, but is more likely the older you get. You can retire early as I did and pay reasonable insurance rates until you turn 65 but once you reach that milestone you are put in an insurance pool with everyone that age and beyond. Your insurance doubles overnight.
Medicare costs a base rate of $94 per month deducted from your Social Security check, but for every dollar you earn over a certain amount from other sources based on your tax return of two years earlier, your cost for Medicare increases. Medicare's benefits are limited. I don't know anyone who can survive on Medicare alone. You have to have a supplemental insurance plan to cover Medicare's cost prohibitive deductibles. Those plans aren't cheap. Yet a large percentage of "seniors" want to maintain the status quo. My guess is if they were to breakdown the "senior" polling by the age groups I mentioned you would find most of the opposition is from those over 75, maybe even 85.
Klein's Article.Heksagon wrote:Is this article available online? Klein writes for Time, right?taki15 wrote:I'm really confused with the Health Care debate. Besides all the nonsense spewed around by the usual suspects, I was intrigued by an article by Joe Klein.
Apparently his commenters too are unable to verify or refute Klein's assesment, they just resort to name-calling and general bashing.
White House Adviser on ‘Green Jobs’ Resigns
By SARAH WHEATON
Published: September 6, 2009
In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.
Controversy over Mr. Jones’s past comments and affiliations has slowly escalated over several weeks, erupting on Friday with calls for his resignation.
Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Mr. Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement prompted recent accusations by conservative critics that he associated with Communists. The group, according to a post-mortem written by some of its founders, was an anti-capitalist, antiwar organization committed to achieving “solidarity among all oppressed peoples” with “direct militant action.”
Republican blogs and conservative talk show hosts, notably Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel, seized upon Mr. Jones’s statements and associations. Mr. Jones apologized on Wednesday for derogatory words he directed at Republican opponents of Mr. Obama’s Congressional agenda during a lecture in February, calling his remarks “inappropriate” and noting that they were made before he joined the administration. Mr. Jones has also said in the past that the Sept. 11 petition did not reflect his views.
“I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past,” Mr. Jones said in a statement announcing his resignation that was released early Sunday morning. That message was followed by another from Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, affirming that she had accepted his resignation.
On Friday, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican conference, called on Mr. Jones to resign, and Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri called for a hearing on Mr. Jones’s appointment. Mr. Obama has appointed more than two dozen special advisers who are not subject to the confirmation process.
Prior to joining the Obama administration in 2009, Mr. Jones wrote the book “The Green Collar Economy” and co-founded several nonprofit organizations, including the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green for All.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009...._r=1&hp
By SARAH WHEATON
Published: September 6, 2009
In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.
Controversy over Mr. Jones’s past comments and affiliations has slowly escalated over several weeks, erupting on Friday with calls for his resignation.
Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Mr. Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement prompted recent accusations by conservative critics that he associated with Communists. The group, according to a post-mortem written by some of its founders, was an anti-capitalist, antiwar organization committed to achieving “solidarity among all oppressed peoples” with “direct militant action.”
Republican blogs and conservative talk show hosts, notably Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel, seized upon Mr. Jones’s statements and associations. Mr. Jones apologized on Wednesday for derogatory words he directed at Republican opponents of Mr. Obama’s Congressional agenda during a lecture in February, calling his remarks “inappropriate” and noting that they were made before he joined the administration. Mr. Jones has also said in the past that the Sept. 11 petition did not reflect his views.
“I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past,” Mr. Jones said in a statement announcing his resignation that was released early Sunday morning. That message was followed by another from Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, affirming that she had accepted his resignation.
On Friday, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican conference, called on Mr. Jones to resign, and Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri called for a hearing on Mr. Jones’s appointment. Mr. Obama has appointed more than two dozen special advisers who are not subject to the confirmation process.
Prior to joining the Obama administration in 2009, Mr. Jones wrote the book “The Green Collar Economy” and co-founded several nonprofit organizations, including the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green for All.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009...._r=1&hp
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19343
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Obama didn't blow it yet, but he's certainly on the verge of it.
It's fine to be a pragmatist, to listen to all sides, be willing to bend without compromising your principles, emphasis on the latter, but there has to be a point where enough is enough. How much more being made a fool of by the rabid Republicans can he take before he develops a public spine? If he doesn't come across a little like Harry Truman in Wednesday night's speech it won't just be all over for viable health reform, it will be all over for Obama. Hillary may take her time but eventually she will resign as Secretary of State and announce her intention to run against him in the 2012 primaries, which is just about the only thing that will give the Democrats hope if this fails.
It's fine to be a pragmatist, to listen to all sides, be willing to bend without compromising your principles, emphasis on the latter, but there has to be a point where enough is enough. How much more being made a fool of by the rabid Republicans can he take before he develops a public spine? If he doesn't come across a little like Harry Truman in Wednesday night's speech it won't just be all over for viable health reform, it will be all over for Obama. Hillary may take her time but eventually she will resign as Secretary of State and announce her intention to run against him in the 2012 primaries, which is just about the only thing that will give the Democrats hope if this fails.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Mister Tee wrote:Based once again on anonymous quotes from the same journalists. It may turn out to be the case, but call me cautious -- I wait till something actually happens before I comment on it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. a). I didn't post any article just now, and b). the article I posted a few weeks ago didn't contain a single anonymous quote. I based this on my observation of un-anonymous statements - made by Sibelius, Axelrod, Conrad, Obama himself ("trigger" indeed) - and by generally watching the developments of this travesty unfold. If the Democrats do somehow manage to squeak the public option into their bill, it will be no thanks to Obama, who really blew this.
I don't suppose you waited to see if Bush's statement "I haven't decided yet to go to war with Iraq or not" would pan out before coming to the a-blind-man-could-see-it conclusion that we were invading anyway.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1252248709
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Based once again on anonymous quotes from the same journalists. It may turn out to be the case, but call me cautious -- I wait till something actually happens before I comment on it.Sonic Youth wrote:It's sure looking more and more like they got this one right, doesn't it?Mister Tee wrote:The New York Times, and the rest of the press, also reported that: Hillary had exposed Obama's fatal weakness with white working class voters; Sarah Palin was going to single-handedly swing the election to McCain; Cash for Clunkers would be stopped by the Senate; and Sonia Sotomayor could never be confirmed before Fall. The Times in particular has a "Democrats in disarray" article-template they trot out periodically, of which this is the latest variant.Sonic Youth wrote: Oh, I disagree. I think the term for what's going on is "trial balloon".
The New York Times reported this much the same way in yesterday's paper. And I'd stay away from news blogs and other outlets to the left of them, because they'll probably be less than charitable in their read of what's going on.
I do agree that portions of the lefty blogosphere are equally guilty -- Arianna leading the way -- because in their Nader-ite souls they want to be disappointed, as it will confirm their dim view of American society. They'd have screamed at the compromises FDR made to get Social Security through.
I'm really confused with the Health Care debate. Besides all the nonsense spewed around by the usual suspects, I was intrigued by an article by Joe Klein.
He mentioned there that the whole Public Option issue is blown way out of proportion and that the really crucial part of the reform are the so-called Health Care Exchanges. He went on to say that smart conservatives are most worried about them because they have the potential to evolve into a single payer system in time.
Now, i there anyone here to enlighten me if this is true or just another DC blowhard not knowing what he is talking about?
He mentioned there that the whole Public Option issue is blown way out of proportion and that the really crucial part of the reform are the so-called Health Care Exchanges. He went on to say that smart conservatives are most worried about them because they have the potential to evolve into a single payer system in time.
Now, i there anyone here to enlighten me if this is true or just another DC blowhard not knowing what he is talking about?