Better To Never Have Loved At All

Posted on 10/12/2009 at 6:01 pm by Bob Cesca

On MSNBC today:

SHUSTER: If you start with a public option and you leave it up to states to decide to opt-out, wouldn’t that be a little bit more aggressive than Olympia Snowe’s proposal?

BILL NELSON: I think it’s the opposite. I think the trigger would be more important, otherwise you could have a state would say, well, the insurance companies lobbied that state and they just completely did what the insurance companies wanted and took away the public option.

So Nelson thinks it’s less aggressive to have a public option that the insurance cartel could lobby against — because some states might cave to the lobbying. Yet he thinks having no public option at all is very powerful.

Oh the twisted and backwards logic of guys who are desperate to protect their bosses in the cartel. Just remarkable.

Adding… Nelson thinks starving is better than having food to eat. You know, because someone might steal your food.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Hielo

    Did Nelson take a cue from Palin on how to make a convincing statement?

  • cjo30080

    Discussing which of these proposals is worse is like discussing which household pet has the worst tasting shit.The opt-out proposal is exciting for those living in blue states and horrifying for those of us living in red states–especially those of us who gave money and worked to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, in part, to achieve health care for all.It’s calculated for long-term political gain at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised in red states. It’s divisive and cruel, and I’m sorry, but you can’t support it and still call yourself a progressive.

  • alopecia

    I tried, I really did, but I just couldn’t make what Bill Nelson said do more than almost make sense. If we posit a perfect world, then the trigger would keep the insurance industry from buying off state legislatures, but then what? Maybe I’m just not drunk enough to understand, but Nelson’s idea runs off the rails at this point.@cjo30080: The opt-out proposal isn’t exciting to anyone, anywhere. It simply may be the only horse-trade that will get enough votes to do any-bloody-thing.

  • cjo30080

    I’m sad to report, alopecia, that you are mistaken. Many, if not most, of the comments over at TPM, WashingtonMonthly, among others, are GIDDY at the prospect of an opt-out.They think that opt-out legislation will lead to more red states turning blue. They think such legislation would lead to more jobs in their states at the expense of red states. They think that liberals living in red states should quit their jobs, sell their houses, and migrate for a health care. They think that those who can’t afford to move or don’t want to should just “suffer the consequences”. Like I said, GIDDY.And the horse-trade nonsense is a rationlization. We have the support from the electorate and the 50 votes we need, plus some, to pass a strong bill through reconciliation. We’re only negotiating with ourselves now, and we’re doing so because many in the blue states are GIDDY at the prospect of fucking the reds states for political gain, even if it means fucking the innocent too.