Had an interesting conversation with a bass player friend about it today. He is an Obama supporter to a fault. He is extremely progressive, but he sees the political side as well. He is saying that Obama wanted to get things done incrementally. He realized a public option was a non-starter and at least wanted to get the trigger in. He thinks Harry Reid, by forcing a progressive issue caused a backlash on the right. I think it's reading too much into it to presume to know what Obama thinks, but I do agree that there is a political element here that is driving things.
If health care passes and things marginally improve is this huge? Many administrations have tried and failed. It's sad and disheartening the levels of greed and hatred in this country.
June 10, 2015 02:58 AM PDT
Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I have really loved surfing around your weblog posts.
|cheap moncler jackets for wome |
October 9, 2012 05:10 AM PDT
It does not follow that because we do not subsidize smoking, we should not regulate unhealthy activities. Costs and savings are not the only variable. The fact that obesity creates costs is merely an additional reason to regulate it, not the only one. The main reason is its danger to an individual. ,311653,http://jazzpoultry.blogdrive.com/archive/524.html
|J f Z |
December 22, 2009 01:41 AM PST
Yeah. It's disheartening that we couldn't just tell the GOP to fuck off and get a comprehensive overhaul to single payor universal healthcare like the other first-world, capitalistic democracies have implemented.
If you're up for watching a really good Frontline report about healthcare (VOD), check out:
|Leave a Comment:|