David Sirota's piece, "Digging In the Right Place" discusses how we shouldn't really expect the feds to come up with health care solutions but rather look to state legislatures and he gives 2 examples: Washington and Wisconsin. Three paragraphs that really stuck out and drove his points (which you will read in the short article) home:
Think about it: The White House can only be won by raising truckloads of cash from moneyed interests looking to preserve the status quo. Likewise, the U.S. Senate's filibuster rules allow 41 lawmakers, representing just 11 percent of the population, to stop anything. These are institutions designed to prevent change, not embrace it.You absolutely cannot argue with that. In fact you already knew that and that's why you probably read this blog. And this which sums up the PTB nicely when faced with a logical money saving plan that would even benefit them:
The Royalist Right is distraught about the plan. When an initial draft passed the Wisconsin Senate last year, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board attacked it on the grounds that it "reduces out-of-pocket copayments" and "increases the number of mandated medical services covered" for patients. Wow. Sounds just awful.Know what the sad thing is? I know "wannabees" who would agree with the WSJ's editorial board just so that they could be perceived as "have mores."
The paper then criticized it as a tax increase and labeled it "government-run" -- as if patients are better served by paying even bigger premium increases to corporate CEOs whose paychecks grow with each coverage denial.
One day I will have to do a write up on my experiences here on Long Island with the Republicans and Conservatives I know from where I lived before I got married (have mores) vs where I live now (wannabees) and that it's mostly the wannabees who delight in sticking it to the hard working class (of which they happen to belong. not you, PB)