Sunday, November 17, 2013

Doing the DOO

Establishment Dems, no longer quaking and quivering before the Republicans' Keep Your Plan bill, were making the rounds of the Sunday shows hurling their own DOO (Defense Of Obamacare) at the naysayers.

It was not easy. Martha Raddatz of ABC-Disney wanted to talk about Kirsten Gillibrand's presidential plans, and Kirsten Gillibrand wanted to talk about her trip to the E.R. with her asthmatic son. Raddatz was all about Obama's suffering numbers instead of actual suffering people. Gillibrand wanted to talk about poor moms with sick kids. Martha Raddatz is a rich mom with insured kids, so the two women effectively canceled each other out worse than those cancellation notices from the criminal insurance cartel. 

Nancy Pelosi was trying, too:
"This is never going to be easy," Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, told NBC's Meet The Press. "What matters is what happens at the kitchen table of the American people and how they will have more affordability, more accessibility, better-quality care, prevention, wellness, a healthier nation."
Nancy meant well, I'm sure. But it's too bad that she failed to mention that what is really happening around American kitchen tables is that there isn't enough food on them, seriously cutting into that wellness thing.  Oh, SNAP. Nancy also failed to mention that she's open to compromise on cutting food stamp benefits even further. 

DOO, in the hands of the corporate media, is all about the fortunes of the fortunate, and who can come up with the best analogies about how 47 million uninsured Americans are personally affecting Obama's legacy. 

Scandal erupted last week when the New York Times' Michael Shear called the botched rollout of the ACA website "Obama's Katrina." DOO-gooders such as Joan Walsh sprang into action. Because when poor people died from neglected infrastructure post-Katrina, Bush flew above the misery in Air Force One and openly did not care. When 47,000 poor people continue to die every year because the ACA was written by the criminal insurance cartel and the best parts (like expanded Medicaid) delayed until 2014 so as not to endanger Obama's re-election chances.... that's different. Obama cares (pun, ha-ha) as well as apologizes. In athletic terms, no less. And then he immediately hops on Air Force One to tell rich people they have to pay for the politicians to do their bidding.

Meanwhile, the DOO debate continues to be framed in terms of the political personalities involved. I've heard it called Obama's Watergate, Obama's Lewinsky, and Obama's Bay of Pigs. If anyone has called it Obama's Waterloo, I missed it. But I'm sure it's out there.... right along with 47 million uninsured people too afraid and too broke to go see a doctor. 

3 comments:

Rose in SE Michigan said...

Karen: you forgot "Obama's Katrina!" It's not, of course, but it is indicative of the overall incompetence of his administration so far. No one has died -- yet. But his latest cave practically assures that many will die, courtesy of junk "insurance" policies that charge little but cover nothing.

Single payer for all is the optimum solution. NOT Medicare-for-all, as Medicare is inadequate. I'm on Medicare, but I can't afford to treat the condition that is costing me my hearing and may eventually cost me even more ( I can't be more specific because I can't even afford the MRIs and CTAs that might help in diagnosing the problem, but one possibility might eventually be fatal).

The answer is clear. Socialized medicine. It's cheap, it works, and it saves lives. Funding it is a no-brainer -- especially compared to the costs we're about to confront thanks to the Obamacare mess. Which is precisely why, this being America (FREEEEEDOOOOOMMMMM! EXCEPTIONALISM!!!!!!!) "it can't happen here."

Karen Garcia said...

Hi Rose,

Under the Expanded Medicare for All Act (see my post "The Ghost Bill" with link to the legislation) there would be no co-pays or deductibles. "Providers" would not be allowed to bill patients for more money as under current Medicare ... they would have to accept full assignment. It would also move providers away from the fee for service system and into salaries.

Jay - Ottawa said...

Here's an idea --Let's Get Loud! (h/t Jennifer Lopez)

Ask your representative why he/she hasn't signed on to H.R.676 yet. Remind him or her that they can actually read the text of this bill before they vote for it, unlike their experience with the ACA, or TAFTA or the TPP trade bill mentioned earlier by Valerie.

If there's a problem with H.R.676, ask the congressperson for specifics on how H.R.676 can possibly be inferior to the mess we have now?

Make it easy: copy in the link Karen provided earlier, where the bill sits, a beautiful and brainy wallflower inexplicably ignored on their very own government site.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr676/text

Then turn to your senators to ask why they haven't introduced a comparable bill in the Senate.

Did I mention the bill's number? H.R.676.