Why? Because the Obama administration is desperate to pass this government takeover of healthcare so Obama can deem his presidency a success, among other things. From 2007 speech text at Sweetness & Light:
“I will judge my first term as president based on the fact on whether we have delivered the kind of health care that every American deserves and that our system can afford. And I’m not going to be able to do it on my own, so I hope that the SEIU will partner in that process.”
/sarc on / Considering that Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, believes Americans are cowards and his wife, Michelle Obama, “has never been proud of her country”, I DO BELIEVE that Obama is trying to give us the healthcare system that HE (and those around him) thinks “every American deserves”. /sarc off /
Of course the Obama administration and Congress’ ACTUAL view is that they’ll deliver healthcare that “every American EXCEPT members of Congress, the President, his cabinet, and unions deserves”! Of course, “cowards” and “racists”, don’t deserve the care that the elite in Washington currently receive.
But I digress…..let’s hear Obama in his own words.
Obama said in 2003 that he was for a single-payer system…meaning a government-controlled healthcare entity. In 2007, he said he believed that employer coverage could be eliminated over the course of years in an effort to get to a single payer government program.
Watch and listen for yourself:
In 2007 Campaign Mode speaking to Center for American Progress and SEIU Healthcare Forum, from Sweetness and Light:
Obama: I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we’ve got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
In 2003, in a speech to the AFL/CIO, Obama advocate IN HIS OWN WORDS a single-payer system controlled by government…From the Politico.com:
If that isn’t proof enough of the Democrats’ plans to takeover our healthcare system, then how about Barney Frank just last week….on video speaking to a “friendly” at “Single Payer Action”:
Got that? It is all a game to Barney Frank and the winner gets government-control of your healthcare decisions!
And there is further information that points to coverup tactics by Democrats….of course, we already know that the plan currently considered is an effort to feign choice for Americans, while planning an evolution to government-controlled healthcare.
Further at HotAir:
If they don’t have the votes to make us choke on single-payer now, they likely never will. Even so, that’s what the liberal wing is planning, as our friend who helped ruin the subprime industry is candid enough to admit here. No wonder the House wants to backloadthe costs of ObamaCare. That’s obviously designed to givethe left a chance to say “it’s working!” during the first five years while expenses are low and use the momentum to push for expansion.
And what if there is some “compromise” on dropping the public plan altogether? Don’t buy it!…Democrats are not going to miss their chance to shove government healthcare on you…it will be done by stealth.
If Obamacare is enacted without a new surtax, its immense costs will lead to tax increases soon enough. If it is enacted without a public plan, the federal government will nonetheless be paying a bigger and bigger share of a larger and larger number of people’s health-insurance bills. What we have here, in other words, are amendments that change the speed rather than the direction of the legislation.
And it is premature to celebrate even a modest victory. The public option may yet resurface in a new guise. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, in his usual bumbling way, has previewed the subterfuge: “We’re going to havesome type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.” Changing the name on the government-run option will not make it any less government-run. Conservative arguments havemade great headway in making the Democrats defensive about a public plan. But removing a single objectionable feature from Obamacaredoes not make the overall package any less intrusiveor ineffective. It’s still a pig, even if the Democrats have started taking out their lipstick.
That is my big fear right now…..Congress will come up with so-called “compromises” that get RINO’s and moderates on board….but will be nothing more than a slightly watered-down version of government-controlled healthcare…but will be control, nonetheless…more from National Review:
The Senate Gang of Six may make some marginal improvements to health-care legislation, such as the elimination of a government-run “public plan” and of the tax increase on high-earners. The downside of these changes is that they may help Obamacare to pass with bipartisan applause for the supposed reasonableness of the Senate negotiators. Conservatives should not be fooled and should not stand down. Even without the public option and the surtax, Obamacare would cause a huge, hard-to-reverse reduction in the quality and affordability of health care — and would represent a setback to free markets and conservatism, as well.
The public option is certainly a weakness of the current House Democrats’ bill, one that could destroy the private-insurance market over time. But the rest of the bill takes the same federal-government-knows-best approach. It uses mandates on employers and individuals to force tens of millions of Americans to buy the level of insurance coverage the federal government demands. For those who cannot afford this level, it offers subsidies in the form of a new entitlement. And it increases the federal role in telling doctors and hospitals what constitutes appropriate medical practice.
The mandates — effectively, they are taxes — will reduce wages, limit new hires, and increase prices. The subsidies, enormously expensive from the outset, can be expected to grow with time to cover a larger and larger share of the population, just as Medicaid has done, and for the same political reasons. And having the government dictate medical practice worsens care and will inevitably lead to rationing.
Be aware and settle for nothing less than killing this bill and starting over with a plan that keeps decision-making, choice and options between doctors and patients…..get the government out!
Filed under: 2008 Presidential election, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Economy, Liberalism, Nutroots, Politics, Progressives Ain't, Racism, Socialism, Socialized Healthcare, Taxes | Tagged: Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Democrats lie, eliminating employer coverage, government run healthcare, healthcare, house bill 3200, HR 3200, Obamacare, SEIU, single-payer system |