If You Give Away The Exchange, What Could You Get?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 01:58:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

My question is rhetorical really, in response to Village Blogger Extraordinaire and disingenuous Obama Lackey Ezra Klein.

The fact is the Village Bloggers' cherished "reforms" are cherished by the insurance industry for a reason - it is the gateway to getting the federal subsidy money. The insurance industry does not oppose the Exchange, they DEMAND it. They do not oppose the individual mandate, they DEMAND it.

Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson put them in a bit of a pickle though. The Stupak Amendment is a direct assault on women's privacy rights and the progressive value of valuing women's health. The price of giving the insurance industry their Exchange and Individual Mandates will be the Stupak Amendment. The price is too high for some Democrats.

So the REAL question is this - what is the insurance industry, the Obama Administration and its Village Lackeys willing to do to save the Insurance Industry Profit Protection portions of "health care reform?" We do not need that "reform" to provide assistance to 30 million Americans who do not have health insurance. So what's the point? What Price The Exchange?

Speaking for me only

< To Thwart The Stupak Amendment, Jettison The Exchange | TPM: WH Opposes Public Option >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

If You Give Away The Exchange, What Could You Get? | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Where was the Stupak Amendment all (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:12:51 PM EST

spring and summer? I thought I was paying attention, but I do not remember abortion financing even being on the proverbial table. Even the tea-partiers wee not bringing up abortion financing, from what I remember. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that even IIPP is not enough of a giveaway to the right for some Dems, like Nelson. When the Public Option was gaining traction, they were getting in trouble with the right and had to come up with something else to appease them, so they came up with Stupak. It would be great if other Dems made him choose - the insurance companies or the social conservatives, take your pick.

Unfortunately, without the IIPP there will be no consumer protection laws either. That was the first deal cut a long time ago.

Let's call the whole thing off.

Stupak has been on this (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:25:59 PM EST

for a while.


Thanks (none / 0) (#3)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:29:22 PM EST

He sure played a smart game under the radar. Wish he was on my side.


: It was deliberately under the radar (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:01:58 PM EST

as it allegedly was dealt with and done away with in committee. I did hear about but heard that, at that point, it was not a further worry.
Now, what is hard to understand is why I believed that of this bunch that put so many anti-Dems on the Dem ballots all these years. I didn't believe it was a good idea then, and I well remember the fracas on DKos about Casey, et al. And yet, I was reassured more recently that Pelosi's bargaining away of single-payer had put to rest any such attacks on abortion and on women.
I continue to live and learn. Of course, will I be allowed to continue to live with my current health insurance? Who knows. This bill is worse by the minute.

Give it all away (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by mmc9431 on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:33:24 PM EST

This entire HCR debate has become a total farce. Democrats are going to pay for this dearly come the mid terms. None of this garbage was mentioned on the campaign trail when they promised true HCR. I think a lot of Democrats, particularly those on the progressive side are going to sit on their hands come 2012.

We waited and worked for 8 years to get the majority for this? I guess they're right when they say be careful of what you wish for!

Yes. "What could you get?" (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Cream City on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:03:19 PM EST

is the question. The answer is: a Republican-controlled Congress in 2010.

Now, as to the obvious next question, I'm trying to figure out just how different that would be from what we've got now.


: They'd end up with a much (none / 0) (#9)
by nycstray on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:09:09 PM EST

larger majority when you toss in the conservadems and the farce would be over for the dems.

Well Thank God (none / 0) (#5)
by lilburro on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:53:09 PM EST

Obama is fighting so hard against the Stupak Amendment and against the removal of the Public Option.

...

Your title really hoists him by his petard (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:04:02 PM EST

Good show.

: Another rhetorical question: (none / 0) (#10)
by jondee on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:21:22 PM EST

would pols like Obama and Hill and co have been able to (politically) live to "fight" another day without all that money from the insurence lobby, and what were the motivations for the aforementioned lobby contributing it in the first place? A simple case of noble, public spiritedness on their part?