It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama vs. Move On

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The Daily Beast


When the White House made noises about compromising on health care, MoveOn.org went on the attack.

Since even before Barack Obama's inauguration, much of the political press has been looking forward to a falling out between Obama and his fans on the progressive left. This week, they seem to have gotten what they've been looking for. The dispute itself is mostly kabuki, but the consequences for health care—for better or for worse—will be quite real.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I, a lefty, personally favor a public option.

I think the danger will be in watering down the universal health care legislation in a way that leaves Big Pharma and Big Insurance in control and continuing to make huge profits while health care remains unaccessible and unaffordable for millions.

Insurance companies are already competing with each other and their plans are still too costly for many if not most of uninsured citizens.

There has to be a public option that will put insurance in the reach of average people.




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I think Oby will buckle to the far left, that is his base that got him elected, if he wants re-election he will do what they want.
move on is the man behind the curtain.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Weird...I just got an email from Move On hawking an Obama bumper sticker.

I told them to keep the sticker and also keep the change.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

I, a lefty, personally favor a public option.

I think the danger will be in watering down the universal health care legislation in a way that leaves Big Pharma and Big Insurance in control and continuing to make huge profits while health care remains unaccessible and unaffordable for millions.



Exactly.

Despite how many subsidies the government provides, they are still planning to fine those who do not/cannot afford health care from the insurance providers.

In the long run, accountants for these corporations will be deciding which health services are appropriate for you, not your doctor. We need a single-payer plan like the rest of the world, so that all US citizens will have equal and fair access to proper health care.

Obama's plan disgusts me and shows how much damage Democrats are willing to do to our country in order to compromise with their lobbyists. And I remember him saying something about putting limitations on lobbyists during his campaign...

Hmmm.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Despite how many subsidies the government provides, they are still planning to fine those who do not/cannot afford health care from the insurance providers.

In the long run, accountants for these corporations will be deciding which health services are appropriate for you, not your doctor. We need a single-payer plan like the rest of the world, so that all US citizens will have equal and fair access to proper health care.

Obama's plan disgusts me and shows how much damage Democrats are willing to do to our country in order to compromise with their lobbyists. And I remember him saying something about putting limitations on lobbyists during his campaign...


Yes, a single-payer plan would be the best by far and also the most cost-effective.

Look what they did with Medicare Part D by cutting the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in on the deal. After a senior pays their insurance premiums and their drug co-pays, and considering there's a "doughnut hole" in all the plans, what most end up getting is about $1,200 in drug assistance per year. That's better than nothing but not nearly what it could be if drug costs were just directly subsidized, and certainly not nearly what most seniors need.

There are a few countries, like Japan and Norway, where there is required universal insurance coverage such as Obama is proposing and I guess they are still better off than what we have now.

I'm just afraid that the U.S. is so extremely far right that many people would rather die than do anything that might be even remotely associated with "socialism."

Obama is trying hard to bend over backwards for this faction, not, apparently, realizing that no matter how many concessions he makes to them they will still hate him and reject anything that resembles universal coverage.

He may as well go for the whole enchilada and enact a single-payer plan.



[edit on 10-7-2009 by Sestias]



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join