Your thinking is honest, noble, basically fair, and extremely cogent Glenn - but I think spun in a pessimistic way - which while not fully unjustifiable, could be ignoring the ONLY known current way to get millions of people at least SOME better help - which I believe has most strongly influenced Pres. Obama and his supporters, including myself.
On Nov 4, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Glenn moyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Rick, > > Ask yourself, who would the American people have supported if the > well-intentioned democrats had allowed and championed a real health care > policy debate? The people gave them a landslide victory and control of the > house, senate, and executive branches. The idiocy of the Sarah Palins would > have been laughed at in the midst of an honest debate treating the majority > of Americans like mature adults. > > Real health care experts will always win against advocates of a profit based > system, whenever a real and honest data driven policy debate takes place. > The evidence is not even close. The blue dogs would have put their tails > between their legs, but of course, that is not what happened. > > > > That is why I point to the very "health care reform committee" that the > well-intentioned democrats controlled and steadfastly defended. They > controlled the debate and they would not allow real health reform experts a > seat at the table nor a forum to advocate for universal healthcare. That is > crucially important. It simply has nothing to do with Republicans, because > the democrats completely controlled that corporate committee that unveiled > Romneycare as Obamacare. . > > It's exactly the same unacceptable anti-democratic coup that we saw piloted > here a decade ago, when UCD and the civic associations announced a hand > picked steering committee to redesign Clark Park. They lied about inviting > all the stakeholders to the table, and offered a list of all the local > corporations and universities as the entirety of "the community." And when > confronted about the closed, exclusive, secretive, corporate committee, they > did not make amends and open the committee or allow transparency. Instead > they used ad hominem attacks against dissenters, just like Rahm Emanual > called health reformers, "fucking retards." The fake committee already had a > pre-conceived plot and could not allow an honest public debate. It's > identical. > > > The well-intentioned democrats would never have needed to do anything except > allow a real health reform policy debate to go in front of the American > people. The people were expecting the democrats to champion health reform. > They gave the democrats the power and backing to do so, but the democrats > would not even allow the debate when they had the power. When any entity uses > deception to hide an antidemocratic exclusive process, and then refuses to > open the process when caught, they actually lose their credibility at that > point. Expecting "good" results from such an unfair process is referred to > in addiction literature as "wishful thinking." > > These fundamental concepts and processes of democracy aren't window dressing. > They are absolutely required to allow for open and honest debate. (By the > way, I read a report about a year ago, documenting how many of the power > brokers around the Bacchus committee had been rewarded with lucrative jobs in > the health care industrial complex.) > > If we support unfair processes and deceptions, we turn our backs on > principles and descend into a culture no different than a street gang. > Loyalty to the leadership rather than to principles is the difference between > gang processes and acceptable democratic processes. All we need do is watch > the idiocy of Fox News and MSNBC to see gangland posturing! > > Please don't get me wrong, I and other single payer activists, really want > Obamacare to live up to the promises of the democrats and benefit the > American people!!! I sincerely hope you are right to support this plan of the > Republican think tanks. But when I go over the data in front of me, with all > sincerity, I am quite certain it will not. > > Sincerely, > Glenn
