For the record, those middle-income families would be paying 15-18 percent of their pre-tax income for their health care. Does that sound like “affordable” health care? For various reasons, Pear’s analysis is hard to judge. But note one thing well: In a detailed discussion of health care costs for the average family, not a word is allowed to intrude about the stunning foreign experience, in which universal care is achieved at half (or less) the per-person cost we maintain over here. Once again, Times readers are kept from knowing a basic fact: Everywhere else, average people get health care at a massively lower cost than obtains over here.
Alas! In America, we tried “managed care.” Now, we’re having a “managed discussion.” A real progressive would scream and yell about the looting which seems to plague the system—about the massive, apparently unnecessary cost of health care for average people. But as the health reform project has proceeded, the looting seems to have stayed in the picture. In an unfortunate trade-off, the word “affordable” has largely disappeared.
E. J. Dionne is a Serious Person. On Monday, he kept his trap shut about a very large problem. The prospective bill will approach universal coverage. But what ever happened to affordable coverage? To us, the evidence seems rather strong: In the press corps, the swells just don’t care.I really don't care about this insurance give-away. It's not going to do a thing to improve my life or my children's lives.
It will make the insurance companies rich.
What else has it done?
It's demonstrated to me how STUPID my own side is. And it's underscored that Communists and Socialists need to self-identify and not present themselves as Democrats. What I see is that the Communists and Socialists gas bags/pundits are as bad as the right-wing ones. They're incapable of having a discussion, incapable of hearing anyone speak.
They're the ones insisting that the right opposed to ObamaGiveAway are evil people, or hateful people or this or that.
No, not all of them.
Many just don't believe the government needs to be involved. Many feel government screws up enough things as it is. And I can disagree with that but understand where they're coming from. As opposed to the liars insisting upon demonizing everyone on the right-wing.
And I'm beginning to get that those liars (you know who they are) really don't get it. They're so committed to a socialist state that they can't understand why anyone would find that bothersome.
They can't grasp why Van Jones needed to leave the administration, after all this time.
The country is in the worst economic crisis and Barack swore up and down he wasn't a Socialist or a Communist and that he'd govern from the center. Then, at a time of economic crisis, he's got a Marxist in the White House.
How much harm could Van Jones have done? I have no idea. Nor do I know that, if given the economy and sticking to a Marxist economic view, he would have done any harm.
But I do understand why people on the right were disturbed and it wasn't just those on the right.
Those who are not Democrats but continue to pose as them to the public need to get honest because they are dangerously screwing up not only the conversation but the Democratic Party. They are (a) screwing up how we (Democrats) are seen and they are (b) ensuring that we will have a hard time getting winning majorities in subsequent elections.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):