So, (some semblance of) health care reform passed, and I suppose that's a good thing, generally speaking. I'm not stoked that it passed without a public option, and I think that Sadly, No! nailed it, as they so often do, when they wrote:
I'll give Obama one thing: it's a start (of course, whether I should give this "one thing" to Obama or to Nancy Pelosi is up for debate). It's better than nothing. And we'll see where we go from here: Tim Noah has a fascinating post* up at Slate regarding the evolution of student loans and what that might spell for health care in the future. One step at a time, I suppose.
* - Money quote: "If you haven't heard anything about [student loan reform], that's because its 'socialistic' premise that the government can lend its own money more efficiently without a middle man has stirred controversy only among the middle men themselves and their friends in Congress."
That even this crappy version of HCR — which is better than nothing and is worth fighting for — passed at all was because of Nancy Pelosi. I’m sure this will make D.A. cry, but Hopey Changey, who has managed his own political capital with the same skill neocons managed the occupation of Iraq, deserves negative credit for its passing. When elected, he had a mandate to kick Republicans in the teeth; he wouldn’t have lost a single supporter had he immediately demonized and demagogued the shit out of insurance companies and Wall Street, two of the most hated groups in American history. But he didn’t; he sucked-up, he kissed-up, he fucked-up. And it almost ruined everything.
I'll give Obama one thing: it's a start (of course, whether I should give this "one thing" to Obama or to Nancy Pelosi is up for debate). It's better than nothing. And we'll see where we go from here: Tim Noah has a fascinating post* up at Slate regarding the evolution of student loans and what that might spell for health care in the future. One step at a time, I suppose.
* - Money quote: "If you haven't heard anything about [student loan reform], that's because its 'socialistic' premise that the government can lend its own money more efficiently without a middle man has stirred controversy only among the middle men themselves and their friends in Congress."
Comments
Post a Comment