Smokin' Video on Obama's Trojan Horse

From VerumSerum:

The compelling part of this, to me, isn't Obama's or Jan Shakowsky's statements that public option will lead to single payer. We've heard that. The compelling part is that Jacob Hacker, the man who "shopped" this plan to Congress (according to NPR), states unambiguously that his plan -- and he should know -- is expressly designed to displace private insurance.

"It's not a Trojan Horse," he says, "because it's right there!" I.e., it can't be a Trojan Horse if it's so obvious about its purpose.

Michael Barrone discusses the vid:

Hacker (formerly at Yale, now at Berkeley) sounds friendly and cheerful in appearances recorded in January 2007 and July 2008. With a government-option plan, he says in 2007, “You can at least make the claim that there’s a competitive system between the public and the private sector,” but he predicts that the government option “would eliminate the small group insurance.” [emphasis added]

Speaking of the government option in 2008, he says, “Someone told me this was a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there. I’m telling you. We’re going to get there, over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should, but we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employer-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

If the designer of the plan states that it's perfectly obvious to anyone that this is intended to take us to single-payer, and the plan's proponents claim the same, how on earth can Obama deny it? He himself has endorsed the idea of using this too-obvious-to-be-a-Trojan-Horse scheme to "eliminate" employer coverage.

Why does no one in the media ask a very obvious question: If Obama has no intention on taking us (without our consent) to single-payer, why is he insistent on a plan designed utterly for that single purpose?

And if he's changed his opinion or something on single payer, isn't it funny that he's pushing a plan expressly designed to get us to single payer without an actual vote or citizen consent on the plan.

Isn't. That. Funny.

"Let's have an honest debate," Obama says. "We can at least agree on that."

Well, some of us agree on that. How about you, Sport?

posted by Ace at 10:21 AM

| Access Comments