Obama is willing to be honest with his “progressive” base behind closed doors. The Senate health care bill plus some reconciliation fixes is just the start.
The goal always has been a single payer system, and it remains so.
As soon as the Senate bill becomes law, the push will start for a public option and other changes demanded by “progressives”:
Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he’d continue to push to make it stronger.
In his recent statement regarding health care, however, Obama presented his proposal as the end result, not the beginning (emphasis mine):
Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. Since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said and just about everyone has said it. So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and businesses….
So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up.
But this is not where we have ended up, and it is not how Obama plans to “finally reform health care.”
The entire health care push by the Obama administration is a ruse. It’s taking what you can get now in order to get more later.
But that is not how it is presented to the public. I wonder why?
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Some Honesty on the Health Care Deception
Holiday Rush Towards Single Payer
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Because they know better than we.
And, after all, what's a little subterfuge among friends? Or should that be "subterfuge among thieves?"
Because Obama understands the relationship between minimum and maximum goals, as Van Jones (former Green Jobs Czar) described them:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czars-shock-admission-green-jobs-goal-is-complete-revolution-away-from-gray-capitalism/
If you view what Van Jones said and apply it to health care, then you can view the Senate bill as their minimum goal and single-payer federally controlled health care as their maximum goal. Progressive "baby steps".
If Obama is telling folks privately that his HCR is only a first step toward a more radical overhaul, that is not only evidence that he is deceiving the public, but MORE IMPORANT, it's an admission that the CURRENT HCR scheme will make things worse, not better.
Think about it: If the Dems' plan is going to achieve nearly universal coverage, reduce costs, reduce premiums, solve people's preexisting conditions problems, and lower the deficit, why on earth would there be any reason or political opportunity to junk Obamacare in favor of "Obamacare II – Single Payer"?
Realistically, the only way to get to single payer is AFTER the Dems succeed in destroying the private health care sector. So, yes, the current scheme does represent the "first step," but for reasons we should all deplore.
He picks his nose; he picks his battles. Every other Democrat in Congress has been on TV in recent weeks saying that the current bill is just a start.
Obama NEVER mentioned the public option during his campaign. He is a seasoned liar.
His motto must be "cost o object."
Someone needs to make a list of every law he has signed, every executive order and add up the cost of what he has spent since he came to power. One cost NOT in the health care reform bill was Doctors' fees. If it had been made part of the bill, he would have come in over the promised amount the bill would cost.
The true cost of this Administration to the country has never been a focus. The focus shifts the way he wants it to shift. During the campaign, when something got too hot, focus was shifted, Same thing now. When health care heats up, we are redirected to another issue. This is how legislation gets passed.
But, I thought he said this wasn't some sort of Bolshevik revolution. I thought he said this wasn't a government take over of health care. I thought he said if I liked my health insurance I could keep it. I thought he said he wasn't an idealogue.
My question is, what's the difference between a single-payer system and a system that would "require individuals… who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need""?
In all reality: Doesn't the kind of change Obama is proposing with health care "reform" really belong in a Constitutional Amendment instead of a massive bill passed with a simple up or down vote? In my opinion, anything this massive should be preceded by an amendment saying we should have the right to health care with legislation to follow.
I know why it is being approached in this manner: because an amendment would not pass the states. Dr. Jacobson, what are your thoughts on this?