Especially the part where the public option has the "authority to negotiate lower prices." Since when does "authority" come into negotiation? Mr. Reich is very highly educated. I wouldn't expect that he'd be throwing around phrases indiscriminately. Yeah, that doesn't sound Big Brother-esque./s
as in they have the authority to collectively bargain for lower drug prices, which independent co-ops don't have. please inform yourselves about the basics of the healthcare debate before you needlessly comment.
When the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House, they created the new Medicare drug benefit, they made sure that Medicare would not negotiate for lower drug prices even though they were buying in very high volumes.Now that the Democrats are in control of the House, Senate, and White House, they are also making sure we will not negotiate for lower drug prices.See how different the two parties are?Here is Bill Moyers speaking about health care reform on Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend:<quote>MOYERS: I don’t think the problem is the Republicans . . . .The problem is the Democratic Party. This is a party that has told its progressives -- who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform -- to sit down and shut up. That’s what Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff at the White House, in effect told progressives who stood up as a unit in Congress and said: "no public insurance option, no health care reform."And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Party has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money. Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans.You really have essentially -- except for the progressives on the left of the Democratic Party – you really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country -- who, as Glenn Greenwald, who is a great analyst and journalist, wrote just this week: these narrow interests seem to win, determine the outcomes, no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who has their hands on the levers of powers, these narrow interests determine the outcomes in Washington, even when they have to run roughshod over the interests of ordinary Americans. I’m sad to say that has happened to the Democratic Party.<end quote>
No strong public option, no real reform. This is *already* the compromise position, a single payer system is what would be far better in terms of reform.
spritomSep 8, 2009
Especially the part where the public option has the "authority to negotiate lower prices." Since when does "authority" come into negotiation? Mr. Reich is very highly educated. I wouldn't expect that he'd be throwing around phrases indiscriminately. Yeah, that doesn't sound Big Brother-esque./s
niradgSep 9, 2009Submitter
as in they have the authority to collectively bargain for lower drug prices, which independent co-ops don't have. please inform yourselves about the basics of the healthcare debate before you needlessly comment.
Closed AccountSep 9, 2009
When the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House, they created the new Medicare drug benefit, they made sure that Medicare would not negotiate for lower drug prices even though they were buying in very high volumes.Now that the Democrats are in control of the House, Senate, and White House, they are also making sure we will not negotiate for lower drug prices.See how different the two parties are?Here is Bill Moyers speaking about health care reform on Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend:<quote>MOYERS: I don’t think the problem is the Republicans . . . .The problem is the Democratic Party. This is a party that has told its progressives -- who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform -- to sit down and shut up. That’s what Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff at the White House, in effect told progressives who stood up as a unit in Congress and said: "no public insurance option, no health care reform."And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Party has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money. Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans.You really have essentially -- except for the progressives on the left of the Democratic Party – you really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country -- who, as Glenn Greenwald, who is a great analyst and journalist, wrote just this week: these narrow interests seem to win, determine the outcomes, no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who has their hands on the levers of powers, these narrow interests determine the outcomes in Washington, even when they have to run roughshod over the interests of ordinary Americans. I’m sad to say that has happened to the Democratic Party.<end quote>
novenatorSep 9, 2009
No strong public option, no real reform. This is *already* the compromise position, a single payer system is what would be far better in terms of reform.
rentalcanoeSep 9, 2009
"general welfare" Look it up.