Sunday, November 07, 2010

Truest statement of the week II

Interpreted charitably, this sentence is simply incoherent. How could Democrats vote for a "public option" when the PO had been withdrawn from the final bill? This simply makes no sense.

Or, interpreted uncharitably, the passage indicates that you are blissfully unaware of the reality, namely that the absurd public option, in a classic bait and switch operation had been removed indeed, had been negotiated away by the White House long before the charade of public debate actually began. So rather than voting for progressive legislation, the "hard vote" was not for health care reform in any meaningful sense, but for what was ultimately yet another bailout, that of the insurance companies in the form of a subsidized market for some 30 million new rate payers which will materialize when the legislation takes effect in 2014.

Such factual inaccuracy was not unexpected given your previous postings, where several fabrications involving the status of third parties were conspicuous.

-- John Halle, "Parry Jumps The Shark: A Final Open Letter To Robert Parry" (Corrente).
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }