As it so often does, the New York Times gave much-deserved credit to its readership’s intelligence Monday, with an article describing the brewing battle over health care “reform” at the state level as the work of insidious insurance lobbyists, who have apparently been plotting for years to derail the ever-shifting corporatist giveaway known as ObamaCare.
How else to explain the fact that “most” of the 42 legislators in Florida who support amending the state’s constitution to prevent federal insurance mandates, received what the Times considers to be “outsized” campaign contributions from “major health care interests?”
What’s worse is that these corporate shills have the nerve to do their dirty work in full view of the public, without even waiting for Christmas Eve, through measures that require significant popular support at the ballot box.
And get this:
In Florida…the state medical association has become an especially important backer of the proposed amendment. In contrast to the national American Medical Association, the state chapter has come out firmly against the current Congressional proposals, and a spokeswoman said the Florida group had embraced the proposed state amendment “to protect Florida from being forced into a federal government mandate that would hurt patients.”
Who do these people think they are: Hippocrates?
Fortunately, the Times is quick to reassure us, “Any federal legislation is likely to supersede state constitutional amendments.” You know, because of the Supremacy Clause or whatever.
Seriously, does anyone still think we should be worrying about what a bunch of old dead white guys wrote 200 years ago?
If so, 20 bucks says they’re from the South.
It appears this NYT "journalist" does not understand the supremacy clause.
My reaction is 'so what!'. Doesn't anyone, regardless of who they are, have a right to express their opposition to a bill if that bill harms their own interest. Surely unions, poor, sick, elderly do but why not "the rich"? Don't they have the same rights to express why they think this is a bad bill for them? At that point, the public is free to be sympathetic or not be sympathetic to their plight but they should be able to say "this bill will harm me in XYZ manor" or the effect would be ABC thing.
The opposition to the wealthy expressing why they think this is a bad bill should never be that they are wealthy but based on their actual reasons they stated is that it is a bad bill.
But what about if their reason is to get more wealth? What if the people think that the bill subsidizes the flow of wealth to the wealthy by way of making us forced customers? Do we just ignore that because it is an argument based on wealth interests?
Politics is about the flow of money, and wealth interests cannot be ignored.
Considering forced health care will be a boon to the insurance companies, his (David D. Kirkpatricks) argument makes no sense. It's just another propagandist passing on a federal STD.
Anyone check health insurance company stock prices lately?
As more and more people call for investigations and for States to assert their Sovereignty, there will be an all out propaganda war. Which is business as usual for the Government.
Each volley of lies and misinformation has to be met with volleys of truth and fact. Educating those who have slept for so long, is the key to bringing liberty back to our Republic.
Case in point: Look at Gov. Perry in Texas.
A few years ago he tried to decree, by edict, that all school girls had to get Gardasil injections as a prerequisite to admission into public schools.
Fast forward to today. Now, he's against the federal plan.
What he is against is not having a place at the banquet table. If he gets his place, it will be shown how pro-industry he is.
Josh, as I have been suggesting through other posts, this is not an industry issue. It is a class issue.
Simply tracking political contributions is not a valid approach. An attempt to do that will compound confusion because you can't tell what the direct motive was. Was it in lobby for something other than Obama's plan? Well, when the studies go back 5 and 6 years, it is easy to realize Obama was an unknown and this plan was an unknown, too. So, you can't look far back like that.
Also, bear in mind, these same contributors gave largely in federal elections, too. If one shows how much they contributed to Republicans, he says, "Aha! This shows they are against the Obama plan." This is silly! How many reaped huge rewards by the Bush/Republican sell-out when non-negotiated pricing for prescription drugs for seniors passed?
These companies are not buying different ideologies with their contributions. Any attempt to show they are will always be fruitless. What they are buying is control.
If you think they are backing state representatives to see to a shut-down of the Obama plan, wait until you see what the final negotiation looks like between the states and the federal government. It will be an industry sell-out by the states, as well. It will be negotiated, to be sure, but it will be a sell-out just the same. The state "opposition" is, at this time, a pretense. I predict you will see a negotiation occur unless the SCt takes action upholding the Obama plan, first.
So, stay tuned and watch what happens in the states. Don't forget to bookmark this comment. You heard it here, first.
Want to see more of the story? Check this out:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_578…