Did David Gregory just position Obama to the Clinton Right as a baseline of acceptability?

[Leopolds Ghost]

David Gregory's people just said:

* Barack Obama would convince Bill Clinton that he was "more of a free trader" like Clinton

* Clinton's authoritarian, corporatist health care plan (also favored by Edwards) to mandate
and require Americans to PURCHASE commoditized private for-profit health insurance will be
"the only thing Barack adopts from Clinton's platform because they disagree on nothing else"
so Barack will implement Clinton's plan to keep the Clinton Right (neoliberal security moms & dads
who have no beef about restricting civil liberties) happy.

(as one blogger here or elsewhere noted, Adam Smith remarked that the worst form of
totalitarianism is forcing an unwilling citizen to purchase something from an eager
seller in order to better their condition, and that in Oregon you can have as many
DUIs as you want, but if you don't produce a certificate from a private for-profit
insurance company your car will be confiscated. That is British style "free trade"
mercantilism and Toryism and it is what the Clintons stand for.)

* They closed the segment by noting that Obama and the Clintons have no major disagreements
except on health care. So they are both neoliberal, corporatist free-traders who want to
create a "security state" then? because that is what the DLC wing is pushing as the
acceptable baseline "center right".

(By the way, the principle of mandated private for-profit health insurance with the burden
on the citizen-consumer to prove he has it, is absolutely indistinguishable from the principle
behind mandated private social security investment accounts. The two ideas operate on the same
principle -- except that in the latter, the investment accounts are organized on a single-payer
basis with the government collecting taxes and dispensing it to the investment plan of the
citizen's choice (out of an authorized list) and not carrot and stick penalties if the citizen
does not choose one of an authorize list of minimal privately owned health-insurance providers.)

[FrenchieCat]

1. As of tomorrow, I'm not going to be watching these programs at all.

These "Pundits in a Square" on cable are killing us. They interview each other over and over again...as though their "opinion" is supposed to mean something when it doesn't.

I will be writing to them asking that they stop with the round table reporters talking to each other (most work for the same parent company, so it is very sad)and start interviewing direct representatives of the two campaigns and bonafide accredited "experts" on the issues that they discuss. These reporters are not experts at anything, and they tire me with their non stop opining based on selective nothing. Reporters aren't supposed to do so much editorializing, and should stick to asking questions of those who are in the business of providing information on certain areas based on the issues.

The punditcrats have influenced our elections since the telecommunications bill of 1996 was signed, and at this point, I have had it up to here.

Since we are their target audience (and only about 800,000 of us even watch), I suggest that folks stop watching en masse. Further, as of tomorrow, I will be writing one letter a day a cable media show of my choosing, 2 National print publications, and 3 local papers published in purple states.

I'm not taking this shit anymore. They've had political "influence" much too long. It's got to end before they fuck us again.

[GoldieAZ49]

4. LOL!!!

I am sure they are waiting for directions!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. I agree with you but you are about to be flamed

By the crowd who has been sold the notion that mandatory insurance is "universal health care". I think you are spot-on with the authoritarian description of the people who support the mandates. The uninsured, thanks to rhetoric from the candidates and pundits like Paul Krugman, have been transformed into the new Welfare Queens. They are the scapegoats for the high cost of premiums and medical procedures and as soon as we forcibly extract money from these young, incredibly healthy (you must conveniently forget all the uninsured due to preexisting conditions for the scapegoating to work), deadbeats with masses of disposable income health care will become magically affordable for all. It's ridiculous and completely ignores the experience with mandatory auto insurance, which has not become less expensive nor has coverage increased.

Another problem is the issue that it is a form of taxation without representation. You can at least make the argument with auto insurance that it's tied to a license but with health insurance there's nothing voluntary involved. If you are alive, you must purchase health insurance. But unlike an entitlement like Social Security or other things we pay taxes for, the health insurance will be administered by private companies who are accountable to their shareholders, not the voters.

Finally, the comparison to privatizing SS is one that I've been making. It's also similar to school vouchers. The proponents of Clinton's and Edward's plans claim that you will be able to choose a competing government plan. Yet that could be said about privatizing SS and school vouchers but I doubt you'll see much support for those things here. It's so ironic that the mandated health plans are touted as a "foot in the door" to single payer, when we all know that private SS accounts and school vouchers aim to acheive exactly the opposite with those programs. The RWers want to completely privatize retirement and education. So the idea that this mandated public/private hybrid is anything but a step away from single payer is laughably absurd.

[dansolo]

6. I hate the idea of mandated insurance

Hillary always claims that the insurance would be "affordable". But what exactly does that mean? Will there me a minimum standard of coverage? And will the insurance companies still have the authority to determine what exactly gets covered? Will hospitals be allowed to refuse to treat anyone who doesn't have insurance? And what about dealing with the astronomical costs of medicines? Has Hillary spoken out about changing the recently passed Medicare prescription drug coverage to allow the Federal government to negotiate lower drug costs? Her plan seems to just be a gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and I hope that Obama doesn't seriously consider it.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Relax and let the public heath professionals design national health

Politicians should not have been involved in the first place. They just ended up scaring people. And never forget, if health care costs get too high, the federal government will start trimming the profits of industry (insurance, pharmaceutical, durable medical goods, hospitals, providers) before it will scrimp on care (i.e the voters), the way that it has done with Medicare under everyone except George W. Bush--the robber baron monarch who did not care about the voters because he had Karl Rove to steal elections.

[dflprincess]

5. "So they are both neoliberal, corporatist free-traders "

That's my take on them and why
a) I wasn't thrilled about either candidate
b) I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a nightmare and very hard to vote for
c) I keep saying I hope to at least see an actual Democrat in the VP slot