The presidential candidate who promised hope and change turns out to be just another dead end political prostitute. No one will be shocked or outraged by this because it's so common, but it was recently revealed that Barack Obama's campaign took in $20 million from the health care industry in 2008. Is it possible that this has influenced the president's decisions of late? Check out this quote from Brad Jacobson at The Raw Story:
Some experts who spoke with Raw Story also noted the rather stark evolution from candidate Obama, who once advocated for universal healthcare and was a vocal critic of mandated health insurance, to President Obama, who excluded single-payer advocates from White House healthcare summits and who has since strongly embraced mandates.
Hmmm... Maybe he's on to something here. This explains why the issue has been phrased in a particular way. Notice the focus of the current debate:
“We don’t hear so much now about ‘health care reform,’” Solomon said. “We’re hearing a lot more about ‘health insurance reform.’ And that is absolutely in large measure driven by the White House.”
What does this mean? The insurance companies should have paid Senator Obama off first. Perhaps then he'd go after the uncompetitive doctors and pharmaceutical companies who are charging the high prices. Doesn't it make more sense to put price caps on drugs and procedures? Isn't that the root of the problem rather than health insurance? (Just so you know: I advocate zero government regulation. My thoughts here are just to illustrate the inconsistency.)
I guess I should be angry, but I'm getting used to this kind of thing. Call me the frog in the kettle.
0 comments:
Post a Comment