«
»

Alinsky’s rules and Obama’s "public option"

Posted 17 Aug 2009 in Barack Obama, Democrats, healthcare, lies, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, socialism

The New York Times would have us believe that President Obama is willing to drop the “public option” from his Obamacare plans.

The White House, facing increasing skepticism over President Obama’s call for a public insurance plan to compete with the private sector, signaled Sunday that it was willing to compromise and would consider a proposal for a nonprofit health cooperative being developed in the Senate.

The “public option,” a new government insurance program akin to Medicare, has been a central component of Mr. Obama’s agenda for overhauling the health care system, but it has also emerged as a flashpoint for anger and opposition. Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, said the public option was “not the essential element” for reform and raised the idea of the co-op during an interview on CNN.

Word that the public option might be dropped angered many liberals. One prominent Democrat, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, said on Monday that he saw a public plan as inextricably linked to a health overhaul. “I don’t think it can pass without the public option,” Mr. Dean, who is a physician and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said on “The Early Show” on CBS.

“There are too many people who understand, including the president himself, the public option is absolutely linked to reform,” he said. “You can’t have reform without a public option. If you really want to fix the health-care system, you’ve got to give the public the choice of having such an option.”

Mr. Obama himself sought to play down the significance of the public option at a town-hall-style meeting on Saturday in Grand Junction, Colo., when a university student challenged him on how private insurers could compete with the government.

After strongly defending the public plan, the president suggested that he, too, viewed it as only a small piece of a broader initiative intended to control costs, expand coverage, protect consumers and make the delivery of health care more efficient.

Don’t bet on it. One of Obama’s single-payer comrades has already admitted, “This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will.” These people will say or do anything in order to get what they want. And their immorality goes demonstrably further than anything we’ve come to expect from typical political expediency.

As you probably already know, President Obama is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals. And Alinsky’s philosophy on ethics would even make Machiavelli blush.

  1. One’s concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

  2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

  3. In war, the end justifies almost any means.

  4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

  5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

  6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

  7. Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

  8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

  9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

  10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

  11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

So with that in mind, and the fact that Democrats have recently changed their propaganda drumbeat from “Health Care Reform” to the more pejorative – and focus group-approved – phrase, “Health Insurance Reform,” do you really believe Obama is willing to walk away from his plans for a “public option”? Or will he simply rephrase it and attempt to sneak it past the American people? (quotes h/t: Human Events)

“It will have, coming out of the House, a public option. The only debate on that is what it will be called.” — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

“We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

“Chairman Baucus has asked me to sit down with [Sen.] Kent Conrad to see if we can use the co-op model to achieve the same goals as a public plan.” — Sen. Chuck Schumer

“You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan.” — Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

“The [co-op has] to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” — Sen. Max Baucus

“I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition [of a ‘public option’].” — President Barack Obama

These charlatans have repeatedly demonstrated that they have absolutely no compunction about lying to us in order to achieve their goal of a government takeover of America’s healthcare system.

Don’t be fooled by their “rope-a-dope” tactics.

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment