Obama was the first presidential candidate that received the most funding from average Americans with small donations and yet caved in to his larger corporate masters wishes.<quoted text>
Obama had no choice but to sabotage Obamacare, even when he had that two-house majority. As you've often repeated, and it's so true, many democrats, beholden as per Repubs to the insurance company, doctors and pharmaceuticals and hospitals, could not pass a REAL medicare universal health plan. They would've lost a major portion of their electioneering funding. Hillary pushed her plan, also a hodgepodge of compromises, under the watchful eye of insurance companies who contributed generously to her campaigns from the NY senatorship to her run for presidential candidate. She had not choice, Obama had no choice.
Interesting your point on the UK conservative gov't loving universal health care. What about Merkel? Now, THERE'S a conservative. Easily re=elected last month, she diminishes univ health care by 1%, she's out next election.
The Ralph Nader list was interesting. Just think, these comparisons use Obamacare. Imagine how that comparison would fare if it was the OLD plan.
LoL, sorry, had to cut your post also.
Republicans are gangsters and Democrats are racketeers loyal to Wall Street and not main street.
Nothing changes Jacques my friend. Just look at the 1939 movie with Jimmy Stewart.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ( 1939 )
Nader Was Right: Liberals are Going Nowhere With Obama
Aug 10, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/kotjan
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
General Abizaid: Mideast Wars May Last 50 Years
November 1, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2ubd58
PITTSBURGH - It might take as long as half a century before U.S. troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army Gen. John Abizaid.
"Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," Abizaid said Wednesday at Carnegie Mellon University.
Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, stepped down in March as the longest-serving commander of U.S. Central Command. He retired from the Army in May and now is at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.