Comments on: NYT on 'Pragmatic' Democrats http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/11/nyt-on-pragmatic-democrats/ The national media watch group Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:38:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Ideology Versus Pragmatism–Again - Fox News Watchdog http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/11/nyt-on-pragmatic-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-11006 Ideology Versus Pragmatism–Again - Fox News Watchdog Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:01:30 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13290#comment-11006 [...] Once again, the New York Times is setting up a false debate over healthcare policy, contrasting White House-style “pragmatism” with left-wing “ideology.” The lead of Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s piece today (12/18/09): In the great healthcare debate of 2009, President Obama has cast himself as a cold-eyed pragmatist, willing to compromise in exchange for votes. Now ideology — an uprising on the Democratic left — is smacking the pragmatic president in the face. [...] [...] Once again, the New York Times is setting up a false debate over healthcare policy, contrasting White House-style "pragmatism" with left-wing "ideology." The lead of Sheryl Gay Stolberg's piece today (12/18/09): In the great healthcare debate of 2009, President Obama has cast himself as a cold-eyed pragmatist, willing to compromise in exchange for votes. Now ideology — an uprising on the Democratic left — is smacking the pragmatic president in the face. [...]

]]> By: Frank (Pancho) Valdez http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/11/nyt-on-pragmatic-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-10558 Frank (Pancho) Valdez Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:14:00 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13290#comment-10558 Pragmatic is not the word I would use to describe certain congressional democrats. Sold out, gutless, lack of principles are terms that are more accurate. While apologists for these rats argue that this is the way that "politics" is done, I say NO THANK YOU! When three to five per cent of the total population control the government, the news media, the economy, the entertainment industry, our school systems and even the churches... well that's hardly a democracy! Got third party blues anyone? Pragmatic is not the word I would use to describe certain congressional democrats. Sold out, gutless, lack of principles are terms that are more accurate. While apologists for these rats argue that this is the way that "politics" is done, I say NO THANK YOU!

When three to five per cent of the total population control the government, the news media, the economy, the entertainment industry, our school systems and even the churches… well that's hardly a democracy!

Got third party blues anyone?

]]> By: B Webb http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/11/nyt-on-pragmatic-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-10512 B Webb Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:14:28 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13290#comment-10512 Most of our health care is in 401(C) corporations (non-profit hospitals). Doesn't that mean they are not capitalist organizations? If most of our actual health care is not capitalist does that mean our health care is already socialized? So really this bill only fixes the gaps in our already socialist organization and stops letting capitalist companies stop taking money away from actual health care. A different way to evaluate if for profit health care is effective: what percentage of patients under 65 on dialysis have for profit health insurance and what percentage are on medicare and medicaid (socialized medicine)? If for profit health insurance simply releases sick people to public health care then the public is paying directly for the profits achieved by health insurance companies. If the public is paying for sick people then health insurance is simply a scam on the taxpayer - health insurance companies are simply redistributing money from the poor to the rich without improving service. When health insurance companies can garentee health care from cradle to grave for everyone (and make medicare and medicaide obsolete) then we can talk about a health finance bill without a public option. Most of our health care is in 401(C) corporations (non-profit hospitals). Doesn't that mean they are not capitalist organizations? If most of our actual health care is not capitalist does that mean our health care is already socialized? So really this bill only fixes the gaps in our already socialist organization and stops letting capitalist companies stop taking money away from actual health care. A different way to evaluate if for profit health care is effective: what percentage of patients under 65 on dialysis have for profit health insurance and what percentage are on medicare and medicaid (socialized medicine)? If for profit health insurance simply releases sick people to public health care then the public is paying directly for the profits achieved by health insurance companies. If the public is paying for sick people then health insurance is simply a scam on the taxpayer – health insurance companies are simply redistributing money from the poor to the rich without improving service. When health insurance companies can garentee health care from cradle to grave for everyone (and make medicare and medicaide obsolete) then we can talk about a health finance bill without a public option.

]]> By: Eldon Rollins http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/11/nyt-on-pragmatic-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-10509 Eldon Rollins Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:29:27 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13290#comment-10509 We already have government health care. Here's how it works. The government is paying 60% of all health care costs in this country already, and you don't hear the people who are getting their health care paid for by the government,(like republican and "conservative" democrat congressmen), whining about a government takeover based on that. The Insurance companies happily collect their clients' insurance premiums until their clients get really good and sick, then they find some cheap excuse for removing them from the client list, (rescission). Why are they cheap excuses? Because if they were legitimate excuses, the insurance company would have removed the client when they were healthy, instead of happily collecting their money for years. So, what we have now is a system where insurance companies, (most especially their executives and other insiders), make money hand over fist, and then let the government pick up the tab when their clients get sick. What is that if it isn't a criminal enterprise, facilitated by crooked politicians greasing the wheels by legalizing business practices by the insurance companies that should never have been made legal? We already have government health care. Here's how it works. The government is paying 60% of all health care costs in this country already, and you don't hear the people who are getting their health care paid for by the government,(like republican and "conservative" democrat congressmen), whining about a government takeover based on that.
The Insurance companies happily collect their clients' insurance premiums until their clients get really good and sick, then they find some cheap excuse for removing them from the client list, (rescission). Why are they cheap excuses? Because if they were legitimate excuses, the insurance company would have removed the client when they were healthy, instead of happily collecting their money for years.
So, what we have now is a system where insurance companies, (most especially their executives and other insiders), make money hand over fist, and then let the government pick up the tab when their clients get sick.
What is that if it isn't a criminal enterprise, facilitated by crooked politicians greasing the wheels by legalizing business practices by the insurance companies that should never have been made legal?

]]>