Will this eventually eliminate private insurance and take away our choices as citizens?
the answer is not very likely. We’re talking about a mix of government sponsored insurance and private companies. Some companies may go under. Others will be able to compete and offer different services. Just as exists in other democracies in the world with UHC.
Is the question, will this eventually lead to a single payer system?
the answer is , that’s not impossible, but it will only happen if that is clearly what is best for US citizens and works well. Remember, a single payer system option has not and does not eliminate private insurance.
I’ve watched the video several times. I’ve linked to the words. I’ve underlined the salient parts of the words. Please quote Obama saying words to the effect of “it will take ten or fifteen years to transition to state or federal insurance.” Because I believe this is an absolutely incorrect paraphrase of what he said.
As a relevant point here’s the entire quote from the 15 to 20 year clip, as posted in another thread.
note that the clip in the OP cuts off Obama after “20 years out” and oh so conveniently leaves out the rest. That’s exactly the kind of dishonest cobbling Douglas is talking about and Kurtz seems to find hard to understand. How any semi intelligent reporter in modern political times fails to grasp this obvious often used tool flabbergasts me and makes me question either his intelligence or motives. It also points out once again that Douglas is not lying, she is correct.
I don’t know what you’re after here, or why you think some onus should be put on Kurtz. Kurtz said Obama had a different position in the past. He did. That’s a FACT. It’s seen in the friggin’video. Unless you think that was Rich Little in blackface. Douglass was flatly wrong. Even being captious, he was a Senator during both those clips.
You’re wrong and Kurtz is wrong. Specific words have specific meaning.
not just in the past but when he was a senator which limits the time frame.
Douglas is not claiming Obama never supported single payer ever. She’s talking about his more recent political stance , when he was a US senator and his campaign.
I asked before , which Senator job do you think he’s talking about?Which is Douglas talking about? I’ve acknowledged that perhaps they’re talking past each other. Kurtz may be trying to say Obama supported single payer at some point in his political career but instead he says “when he was a senator” and that is specifically what Douglas responds to, speaking of his US Senator period. He also makes a serious error when he refers to Obama’s transition to fully government insurance. That’s clearly not what Obama says and now the fuller clip reveals the inference is a dishonest one.
So, what we have is Kurtz being grammatically inaccurate, just plain wrong, or both, while your assertion that Douglas lied is shown to be false.
Look at where Kurtz begins here. here’s talking about Obama before he was President. That means prior to January, 2009. He’s asking how is this possibly illegitimate?
She responds first with obfuscation and misdirection, trying to characterize ANY assembled video with chyron as without merit. That’s complete bullshit. But then, like a well-practiced liar, she ends with a nice flourish of truth: true, he is NOW saying the opposite.
Kurtz presses her with the mind-numbingly obvious:
The “That” in the first sentence refers to the plan the old Obama favored. She tries to redirect the discussion on the current plan then Kurtz delivers the last line, which is 100% true. You want to get your panties in a wad because he didn’t stipulate “U.S.” Senator, go right ahead. I see state senators referred to quite often without a descriptor. But the LARGER point is that the pre-President Obama held a different position. You seem to think it matters that he was a state Senator or a U.S. Senator. WHy? It’s the same man. The important contrast is the position he holds now and one he held previously. Would you feel better if Kurtz had said: "But apparently he did have a different position when he was [a state] senator, and that’s legitimate to throw out there.
[/QUOTE]
How in the world would that change the fact that Obama previously held a different position? Hint: it doesn’t.
It is also your own deliberate spin on what she said. She said it was possible to play games with text–a point that has already been proven in this thread when the more complete transcripts of Obama’s words are provided demonstrating that the clipped passages are more than misleading as to his intent at the time he spoke, regardless of any purported subsequent changes of opinion–not that every assembled video was always inaccurate.
The patched together sound bites are a misrepresentation of what Obama has actually put forth. That is par for the course for political ads, but her criticism is exactly true for this ad (and most political ads).
Which is, again, your own spin on what both she and Obama actually said.
The only poster I see with panties wadded is the OP with its Pit rant disguised as a Great Debate.
State senators are often identified simply as “Senator,” but I do not recall ever seeing a U.S. senator identified by any previously held state office unless the speaker explicitly notes that it is the state office being referenced.
which she explains in simple terms that any reporter should understand.
No this is total bullshit. They are talking about this specific video and she mentions a commonly used dishonest political tactic that any decent political reporter has seen a thousand freaking times. She is not trying to characterize any and every assembled video. She’s not misdirecting. You’re dreaming. She’s correctly saying it’s a common political technique. Being an experienced reporter herself she probably assumes Kurtz knows what she is talking about. If his point is that Obama at one point seems to have supported single payer his language is embarrassingly inaccurate. His question “It’s his own words, how is that illegitimate?” sounds like an argument
for the opposition rather than a question from an intelligent reporter. Any reporter who has covered politics in the last year or so knows exactly how these techniques work and how sound bites can be edited to mislead. Douglas is there to support Obama’s current plan and dispell falsehood’s about his current plan. If Kurtz wanted to pin her down about what Obama may have supported in 2003 he did a shitty unprofessional job. If he had they might have had a conversation about the relevancy of quotes from 2003 to the current debate. Instead he decides to move on to another stupid idea thast the WH web site built to answer questions and dispell rumors is actually a secret information gathering site to target WH enemies.
I’m giving Kurtz the benefit of the doubt by saying he may have meant a more generic “Obama at some previous point supported single payer” but since he failed to be specific enough and said “when he was a Senator” Douglas correctly responds to Obama’s position as US senator. Kurtz had an opportunity then to clarify but he failed to do so.
It matters within the context of the conversation and your OP insisting Douglas is a lying bitch.
We haven’t established whether it’s important. The discussion never occurred because Kurtz did his job poorly. Douglas repeated Obama’s campaign statement about single payer not starting from scratch and that fit’s fine with his 2003 statement.
Yeah, I would feel better because then we could have the conversation about him no longer holding that position, or we could ask to hear that clip in context since the context of the other revealed the malicious dishonest intent of the video.
regardless, the point is your assertion in the OP and in other posts about Douglas being dishonest is wrong. she didn’t misdirect or avoid anything. She responded to what Kurtz was saying to her and her point about the video is shown to be true. If you think some important point was missed blame Kurtz for doing a crappy job {and that’s giving him the benefit of the doubt} Douglas was not trying to squash legitimate discussion.