HBO Takes on Wall Street

May 20th, 2011 at 5:56 pm | 33 Comments |

| Print

In the spring of 2008, just as the wheels were starting to come off of Wall Street, HBO presented a movie about how the Bush era began, with a star-studded film of the 2000 election Recount. This Monday, May 23rd at 9:00pm (ET/PT), we relive its unhappy ending, with an equally celebrity-packed adaptation of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s controversial bestseller, Too Big To Fail, directed by feature veteran Curtis Hanson.  William Hurt, Paul Giamatti, and Billy Crudup head an A-list as the power threesome of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then chief of the New York Fed.

While not as operatic or entertaining as Oliver Stone’s Wall Street follow-up, Money Never Sleeps, the film more than passes the All the President’s Men litmus test of making nail-biting, suspenseful entertainment out of real events where we already more-or-less know “who dun it” and how it all mostly turned out.  Hurt plays Paulson with military soft-spoken precision, dictatorial in the office but racked with doubts when by himself or with his wife (Kathy Baker, top-drawer as usual).  Crudup is appropriately weaselly as Geithner, and Giamatti and his hound-dog eyes do a good impersonation of the shy academic suddenly trying to keep himself (and the economy) afloat in the deep end.

Yet aside from a cheap Law & Order “ripped from the headlines” ploy for publicity, though, is there any other reason why HBO is making this movie now, when we’re still trying to crawl out from under the blowback?  While the Great Recession, and the 2008 economic meltdown that precipitated it, as bad as it is, isn’t the moral equivalent of slavery, Vietnam, or the Holocaust, it is their equivalent in one particular way.  As was said of that trio of terrors, the meltdown is like “a monster that sits down in the middle of our history and refuses to go away.”  And like a monster sitting down in the living room of a Truman Capote or Eudora Welty novel, its tragic and comic dramatic value comes from watching everyone else’s determination to politely ignore it, to pretend that it just isn’t there.  The 2008 meltdown has become a mythological pool that reflects more of the image of each person looking at it than it reveals anything about itself.

Behind Curtain Number One, today we have the Republican party of Paul Ryan and John Boehner, now pushing austerity measures and survival-of-the-fittest “free market” solutions.  The same Paul Ryan and John Boehner who took to the floor of the Congress in fall 2008, openly crying and shuddering, literally begging for bailouts and make-ups and interventions, dispensing totally with what I remember one commenter on this forum calling ”free-market BS.”  The same Ryan and Boehner who had supported Dick Cheney and Karl Rove’s activist “big government conservatism” totally, and raised barely a peep about deficit spending until after Obama took office.  They may have reverted to Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand today, but back then, their philosophy more resembled that of Randal Graves from the definitive slacker movie Clerks: “I’m a firm believer in the ruling class — because I rule!”

Behind Curtain Number Two, we have the Democrats.  Was it Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush who deregulated financial instruments and media-monopoly laws, fully opened China and India, and started sacking US manufacturing in earnest?  Nope.  It was “new Democrat” Bill Clinton (who dismissed regulator Brooksley Born in 1999 as brutally as Cheney did Paul O’Neill, when she threatened to upset the Masters of the Universes’ apple carts.)  After the meltdown, President Obama blanket-reappointed virtually all of the Clinton and Dubya secret-handshakers who were ruling the roost before and during the crash — Geithner, Bernanke, and Larry Summers.  Democratic critics of Wall Street ”greed” and ”corruption” like Robert Reich and Russ Feingold were unceremoniously kicked to the curb.  And to frost the cake, when it came time for healthcare, “pro-business Democrats” like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, and Joe Lieberman stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tea Party to defeat the liberal dream of a public option, switching it out for the much-hated individual mandate.

Yet today, less than two years later, the Democrats go banging on about how they “stand up for the little guy”, how they’re for “Main Street, not Wall Street”, how only they can protect us from the “greedy”, “racist”, “incompetent” Republicans.  Right.

But it’s Curtain Number Three that has the Big Deal of the Day.  As much disagreement as there might be between Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich, between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, at least they all agree that the 2008 crash was a one-time meltdown, a tragic accident built of mistaken, not deliberate screwups.  Ask someone like Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders what it was all about, though, and they’ll tell you a different story.  To them, the meltdown was a deliberately planned and executed ”theft” of home-equity wealth from middle-class and minority homeowners to the ruling class, to bring the “shock doctrine” to America and put people in their place.

In this reality, the sweated-through suit jackets and teary eyes of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke were all an act, a put-on as campy and cheesy as “I did not have sex with Miss Lewinsky” and “Bring it on!”   They were actually lovin’ every minute of the meltdown, gleefully shoveling taxpayer money into Uncle Scrooge’s hoarding vault. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) writes the narrative.  “It was all very carefully planned… to happen exactly when it did, and to involve the players that it did,” she schoolteacher-smirks in Capitalism: A Love Story.  “It was like an intelligence operation.”  When Michael Moore croons if the 2008 meltdown was an “economic coup d’etat”, as deliberate and on-purpose as anything Fidel Castro or Augusto Pinochet came up with, Congresswoman Kaptur replies, “Yes. That’s what it was!”

Perhaps the reason that so many commentators and elected leaders agree with Kaptur and Moore is how, after the bailouts and bonuses, instead of doing the “perp walk” to federal prison, many of the banking executives who survived the 2008 collapse are now enjoying record profits.  One gets the feeling that after the adventures of OJ, Robert Blake, Klaus von Bulow, Kenny-boy Lay, and country-club sentences for Michael Milken and Bernie Madoff, they knew that whether it was “on purpose” or an accident was beside the point.  One might say they were “too big to JAIL” — and they knew it.  (Can you imagine what a Gordon Gekko or JR Ewing would be thinking to themselves at the sight of some Representative Pothole trying to compare intellects with them?)   Tellingly, in this movie nobody plays Bush or Cheney (although Nancy Pelosi and a few other Congresspeople get the doppelganger treatment).  It’s as if at this level, even the Presidency is almost irrelevant – and all of the financial players have unmitigated contempt for the House and Senate — or more specifically, what they think are the unsophisticated rubes who populate them.

They say that the three things nobody is supposed to see from the inside are autopsies, processed meat, and politics.  What will keep September of 2008 living in infamy well after we’ve recovered from our current catastrophe is that it was when all the politics and platitudes died (temporarily), in the harsh sunshine of reality.  It was when we got a look at what happens to the doggies and kitties in the animal labs, instead of the miracle drugs and cosmetics at the pharmacy.  It was when we opened the wrong door at the hospital’s OB/GYN ward and saw an abortion, instead of the bunting babies in the nursery.  Forget “too big to fail.” The real problem is that it was too big to ignore.

Maybe Gore Vidal was right about our being “The United States of Amnesia.” We want to forget, to put it out of our minds, and our politicians are more than happy to try and help us to.  But we can’t – and we shouldn’t. So here’s to HBO for giving us all, of every party and persuasion, a plangent and much-needed (if liberty-taking) reminder of who, what, when, where, and why.  Of the day when politics-as-usual finally ended — and realpolitik ruled the world.

Recent Posts by Telly Davidson

33 Comments so far ↓

  • KellyRek

    ‘The same Ryan and Boehner who had supported Dick Cheney and Karl Rove’s activist “big government conservatism” totally, and raised barely a peep about deficit spending until after Obama took office.’

    Paul Ryan is a hypocrite.

    ‘Democratic critics of Wall Street ”greed” and ”corruption” like Robert Reich and Russ Feingold were unceremoniously kicked to the curb.’

    I miss Russ Feingold.

    ‘And to frost the cake, when it came time for healthcare, “pro-business Democrats” like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, and Joe Lieberman stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tea Party to defeat the liberal dream of a public option, switching it out for the much-hated individual mandate.’

    The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Obamacare needs to be repealed.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    not bad telly, but I WANTED far more of a review of the movie than you gave. I go to you for movie reviews because you are good at that. There are more than enough people to give their political opinions, what the world needs more of are good movie reviewers, so more of what you are good at please or I will demand my money back.

    What’s that? I didn’t pay anything and I should kindly Eff off? Ok, then eff off I shall.

    Kellyrek, um…the Supreme Court will decide what is Constitutional or not, what you have is nothing more than a meaningless opinion.
    And the mandate is not Obamacare, it is just one small part of it, if it were to be considered unconstitutional the insurance companies would scream so loud that a Tax and credit plan would quickly replace it. I guess you are in favor of rescission and denial of care and are happy that 60 million Americans lack health insurance and clog up ER’s getting free and far more expensive care.

  • valkayec

    While I did not read the entire editorial above, I hope this how rips Wall St apart and shows how much the connection between Wall At and Congress exists.

    I am sick and tired of our entire economy being held hostage to greedy Wall St bankers & traders who have the ethics and morality of snakes. I say that as an investor.

    The American public and worldwide investors deserve better than the slease-ball tactics of traders and bankers during the last decade. It is truly unfortunate that the mechanisms were not in place in 2008-2009 to wind down and eliminate these ego-centric, self interested players who caused so much harm to the world economy, let alone costs millions of jobs and the lose of trillions in net worth. The fact that these “vampire squids” remain not only at large but have not been charged with financial crimes astounds me. How can I as an investor trust anything a trader or investment manager or researcher says any more. They have completely destroyed their credibility.

    I hope films like this one and others will shine such a spotlight on Wall St. that even the GOP, which is seriously courting Wall St donation dollars, will think twice. The American public needs to know…writ large…how they’ve been deceived and continue to be deceived by Wall St.

    • KellyRek

      The relationship of the Federal government with Wall Street, the bankers, the insurance cartel, and the healthcare industry is incestuous. Lawmakers retire, eventually becoming lobbyists or consultants for these entities. Just look at Rahm Emanuel’s background. And look at Tom Daschle. How about Dick Gephardt?

      The K-Street revolving door for our politicians is the norm. McCain-Feingold was an attempt at campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. “Corporations are people!”

      That’s why in big government, big business always win. That’s why the public option got defeated. That’s why we do not have single-payer insurance. Look at Joseph Lieberman, Max Baucus, Paul Ryan — in who’s interest do they actually represent?

      We don’t have government working for the people. We instead have government working for the corporation. And the people are mandated by the government to pay up to the corporate master.

      The bigger the Federal government gets, the further removed it becomes from the concerns of Main Street. The growth of big government and the growth of big business occur in tandem. Their tentacles squeeze the life out of small players. The oligopolies in the insurance and healthcare sectors hate competition. Obamacare will only enhance the oligopoly status of these corporate giants.

      If President Obama were a true progressive, he would break up these giant monopolies — for the purpose of enhancing capitalism. But alas, he isn’t a Teddy Roosevelt.

      • valkayec

        I agree. Obama is not TR. Our government is bought and paid for, thanks to the SCOTUS which made an illegitimate ruling based on a wrongful reading of a court decision and Gingrich’s “pay to play” idea that became the norm in the House and Senate.

        The public is being sold out – and most don’t even know it or how bad it is – and only an aware and informed public can save the country from the vampires that seek to drain us all of our lifeblood.

  • SteveT

    I don’t think that ObamaCare will be struck down.

    In the end I think the deciding vote (and there may be others) will be cast be John Roberts. I don’t think he wants to be seen grabbing so much power from the other 2 branches. Striking down in it’s entirety a law as hard fought as the AHCA would be too much for him. What would that say in the end? That SCOTUS rules the country?

    The refusal to grant early certori is also in my mind a clue about this. But we’ll know so enough folks!

    • valkayec

      Maybe not Roberts, but what about Scalia, Alito and Thomas. Roberts has proven he will follow them to push average Americans over the cliff in favor of large corporations.

  • SteveT

    This would be different because this would get a lot of publicity. Also those cases involved interpretation of laws, not striking down a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    Scalia, Alito and Thomas. They will probably vote to strike down, but I’m guessing not Roberts and Kennedy. So 6-3 it’s upheld, with at most some minor changes.

  • Rabiner


    If the Supreme Court can say that growing Marijuana in your own backyard for your own use can be construed as interstate commerce than how can you say that the Individual Mandate isn’t constitutional as a means of regulating interstate commerce?

  • Frumplestiltskin

    The case will not likely even get to the Court until 2012 and maybe not even until 2014 (considering that no one has standing until then since you can’t claim damages against a law that has not yet come into effect which the mandate won’t be until 2014) so who knows what the court will be in 3 years, if Obama is re-elected it is possible that someone like Scalia will be dead before it is ruled on.

    And please, no blogs from idiots like Capcity, the Heritage foundation is the organization that came out for the Mandate, now they are against it, what a surprise that they suddenly discovered rights that they did not know exist when they pushed for it under Romney.

    • KellyRek

      It is important for all of us to read, examine issues from all perspectives, from the various sources:

      1) Libertarian
      2) Conservative
      3) Progressive
      4) Socialist
      5) Centrist
      6) Corporatist

      Why was it wrong? … my posting a link to the Capital City Free Press blog. As for the Heritage Foundation, I certainly do not agree with everything they espouse. (And I certainly am not a fan of Mitt Romney.)

      I get my information from both liberal and conservative sources. That’s how I learn.

      The FrumForum is a wonderful website in that there is a free flow of ideas. Most of the participants are quite intelligent and they engage in civil dialogue. I have recommended this site to friends and colleagues. I have also provided links to the FrumForum from other blogs.

      Though I often disagree with you, Frumplestiltskin, I still learn from you. Perhaps you are helping to reshape my own thoughts and opinions. I may come to agree with you on certain matters, because of your persuasive arguments.

      But I certainly wouldn’t shut out the Capital City Free Press any more than I would shut out The Nation magazine. Censorship would be wrong.

  • Textex

    Here’s someone worse than Madoff. Read this link and forward it to everyone you know, so they don’t get scammed:

  • KellyRek

    extort: v.t. 1. to obtain from a person by force, threat, or intimidation

    Definition from the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 2000 edition.

    The government is using force, by means of the individual mandate with I.R.S. enforcement via the excise tax penalty (and possible imprisonment in the Federal Penitentiary) for noncompliance.

    It is an act of extortion by the Feds, for them to force me to purchase a product — that I do not want — from a monopolistic corporation. It is an outrage that I’ll lose my doctor that I’ve been seeing for the past 15 years, and to be forced to accept an insurance plan that does not include my original doctor. And why isn’t President Obama held accountable for the lies he said about healthcare reform? … i.e. that “you can keep your own doctor.” (And how about the lies he said as a candidate, stating his opposition to the individual mandate while accepting huge campaign donations from AHIP.)

  • Rabiner


    Under your concept of ‘extortion’ any tax is ‘extortion (which just isn’t true). You simply don’t understand the meaning of ‘force’ in the context of definition of extorting. Force means without choice which is obviously not true regarding health care reform. You can forgo buying insurance if you pay a fine, that’s a choice right there.

    Also stop feigning outrage that the company you work for will change health care plans and then blame President Obama for it. Blame your company.

    Regarding getting information from different sources, the problem with citing other blogs which have dubious reputations is that the information they present can’t be trusted. When you start bringing sources into an argument everyone has to believe them for your argument to carry weight and “Capital City Free Press” just doesn’t past muster for most of us.

    • KellyRek

      My company will be mandated by the Federal government (effective 2014) to provide comprehensive insurance to us workers. This is not the company’s fault.

      Obamacare will be compelling me to become dependent on my employer for routine healthcare. If I were to purchase a government-approved policy on my own, I would not get the same tax break as an identical plan via my employer. This is not the company’s fault.

      As for the Capital City Free Press link, I went back to the site and reread the blog. The article was well-written.

      Rabiner, you have the freedom to read and not read whatever you like. As for trust — do not trust any one source. We must be skeptical about everything. That’s why it is important to examine many different viewpoints. You can’t do that if you shut yourself off and refuse to peek over the fence. Go to the enemy camp and see what they are saying! What are you afraid of?

  • Rabiner


    I read your source, it just isn’t a good argument. Read this:

    I don’t see the individual mandate being overturned for a number of reasons but the inactivity/activity argument just doesn’t hold water in a court of law. Show me a person who will go through their entire life without consuming heath care and I’ll show you a valid ‘inactivity’ argument.

  • Rabiner


    I prefer single-payer in the mold of Medicare which provides basic care to everyone. Wealth citizens could purchase add-ons like Medicare Advantage kinda does but it wouldn’t be subsidized as Medicare Part-D did.

    Regarding the progress, flat, or regressive tax…

    I’d like to see an increase in Medicare payroll taxes that can pay for such a system as I described above. Also Medicare payroll taxes currently if I’m not mistaken is technically a flat tax (there is no cap on this payroll tax like there is with Social Security) although the tax affects the poor more than the wealthy since they have a higher marginal utility of money than the wealthy.

    Also you totally sidestepped the article I posted or the comment I made regarding it.

  • KellyRek


    If I sidestepped the article or comment you had made regarding this single-payer idea, do you remember in which discussion thread it was in? I would like to reread your article wherever it’s located.

    Being a newcomer to the FrumForum, I am slowly getting acquainted to the scores of participants. It is hard to keep track of everyone or to remember all their posts.

    From now on, I will place extra attention to your writings, along with those of Frumplestilstkin, valkayec, and torourke. Thank you for having engaged me in this discussion on the individual mandate. (By the way, I agree with your ideas on single-payer, as you’ve just outlined in the above post.)

  • Rabiner


    I’m talking about this thread and the article I linked to from Slate regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

    • KellyRek

      I’ll get back to you 12 hours from now. Currently, I’m on duty doing the graveyard shift and must be back to the airport soon.

  • KellyRek


    I am looking for solutions. Your single-payer model for healthcare reform seems to be the answer.

    Meanwhile, the new Obamacare law — in its present form — will be impacting me negatively. Please visit the link below:

  • Rabiner


    I’m indifferent to the health care plan impacting you negatively. I don’t look at public policy from the perspective of ‘is this good for me’. I look at it from the perspective of ‘is this good for the collective’. If the policy’s gains for people outweigh the negatives for other people then the policy can compensate those who are negatively affected while still maintaining net positives. You’re being compensated when ‘losing’ your current health care insurance in a few years with a more comprehensive, perhaps cheaper, and more secure health insurance policy.

    • KellyRek


      Your quote: “I’m indifferent to the health care plan impacting you negatively.”

      That is precisely what is wrong with the collectivist philosophy imposed upon us from the leviathan in Washington D.C.! The bureaucratic state doesn’t care less about my freedom or about my individual welfare.

      Instead, socialism seeks to mandate patronage, supplanting the role of civic organizations and religious organizations (where people voluntarily participate in charitable deeds.) In a socialist society, the central planners enforce collectivism and undermine individual initiative.

      Under corporate socialism, the government mandates the citizen to purchase unwanted items from licensed companies. Under capitalism, the citizen has the freedom to purchase commodities from the businesses at his own discretion. If a company provides inferior service … in the former scenario, you are still mandated to purchase that product; in the latter scenario, you have the freedom to boycott that company. (In the case of Obamacare, I will be mandated to accept the objectionable insurance plan that causes me to lose my doctor and to lose the personal care I’ve treasured.)

      I just read an essay about Kirkpatrick Sale, a left-wing secessionist, who currently resides in South Carolina. The article is titled, “Radical Kirk,” written by Jack Hunter in The American Conservative magazine (July 2011 issue). Unfortunately, the article is only available to subscribers, so I couldn’t provide you the link.

      Anyhow, the article affirms my belief that the Federal government has gotten too intrusive — for those of us (on both the left and the right). The elites in Washington D.C. have divided the American people by exploiting the cultural, hot button issues (such as abortion and gay marriage). And currently, it is identity politics that is being employed against us. (Likewise, Paul Ryan is using the divide and conquer tactic, dividing the baby boomers into two factions … using the birth year of 1957 as the dividing line.)

      Because of this nonsense emanating from Washington D.C., that is why the American people have such low regard for our lawmakers in the Congress as well as in the White House. Both political parties are held to low esteem.

  • Rabiner


    You still didn’t answer me regarding why you think the cap city free press article is more persuasive than the slate article.

    • KellyRek


      I had never stated that the Capital City Free Press is more persuasive than the Slate article. (I had merely stated, “As for the Capital City Free Press link, I went back to the site and reread the blog. The article was well-written.”) I had never criticized the Slate blog.

      Why is it necessary for me to give additional input on the individual mandate? You guys had already debated back and forth as to its constitutionality. (Those big shots in the Supreme Court will eventually make their ruling.)

      In the meantime, I will be focusing my energies on the preservation of our liberties against the ever expansive intrusiveness of the Federal Government. I am reading liberal, conservative, libertarian, and centrist publications. I am writing. I am participating in blogs. I am contemplating which organizations I need to join. Time is a precious commodity.

      As for the HBO movie, Too Big to Fail, I will look forward to eventually seeing it. Telly Davidson had written an excellent review on it.

      Also, I will be taking a break away from the FrumForum. For now, I have taken refuge within The American Conservative website, where I am currently participating. (Jack Hunter is my favorite blogger there.)

  • Rabiner


    First off your idea of Corporate Socialism is pretty wrong and so misconstrued as to not comment much further on it. You basically took a term you think you know what it means and then applied it to something completely different.

    “That is precisely what is wrong with the collectivist philosophy imposed upon us from the leviathan in Washington D.C.! The bureaucratic state doesn’t care less about my freedom or about my individual welfare.

    Instead, socialism seeks to mandate patronage, supplanting the role of civic organizations and religious organizations (where people voluntarily participate in charitable deeds.) In a socialist society, the central planners enforce collectivism and undermine individual initiative.”

    First off your idea of socialism is wrong, socialism doesn’t enforce collectivism but it does state that the free market has a role, just not a role in everything. There is a place for capitalism and a place for socialism even in our society.

    Secondly, you totally don’t understand what I wrote. Government policies aren’t meant to deal with one individual person but rather meant to apply to everyone so it is everyone that the policy should address. They care about your individual freedom or welfare, just not more than they care about the next person.

    You still struggle with the concept in the Slate article as to why the Individual Mandate most likely will be deemed constitutional. The fact its unrealistic to think a person can go throughout life without consuming any health care services renders not buying health insurance a free loading problem for society and thus subject to commerce.

  • KellyRek

    What makes you conclude that I am struggling with the Slate article on the constitutionality of the individual mandate? In none of my posts did I criticize the Slate article!

    It is refreshing to read Slate’s arguments on the mandate, in addition to reading the Capital City Free Press’s arguments. People have different opinions. It doesn’t bother me. I love hearing both sides of the story! (We’d live in a boring world if everybody was merely “preaching to the choir.”)

    As for government trying to impose its solutions on society, I know it means well. But as with drugs, you can have unintended side effects. The socialist answer to routine healthcare is standardized care, whereas the capitalistic answer is personalized care. Before ObamaCare fully kicks in, I have more choices as a healthcare consumer … particularly my choice of doctor — kudos to capitalism. By 2014, my choice of doctors will be restricted by the government-approved insurance, chosen by my employer (as mandated by ObamaCare) — kudos to corporate socialism.

  • Rabiner


    The capitalistic answer to health care is die if you can’t pay, not ‘standardized’ care.

    • KellyRek

      I am referring to routine care being under the modus operandi of capitalism, which is generally affordable. Even for the very poor (and the illegal immigrants), there are discount medical clinics (which accept cash payments.) They exist here in the Phoenix area.

      A criticism I have with ObamaCare is the way it mandates insurance policies to be larded with all kinds of expensive perks. “Torourke” points this out in one of his older posts. Likewise, “Banty” had said that insurance should be covering for “significant health care events like accidents and serious illness, saving the patient from bankruptcy,” but not for smaller events and needs which we can pay for ourselves.

      If ObamaCare were to mandate only catastrophic insurance, then I’d be able to keep my own doctor. But because I’m over the age of 30, catastrophic insurance would not be allowed. I am forced to have comprehensive. This is so stupid!

      Link to “torourke’s” post:

      Link to “Banty’s” post:

  • KellyRek

    Excerpts from Roger D. Hodge’s book, The Mendacity of Hope … Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism:

    “The health bill that was signed on March 23 [2010] is best understood as a bailout of the private health industry that seeks to guarantee some 30 million additional customers for insurance companies and continued obscene profits for large drug manufacturers. Almost everyone in the health-industrial complex will get paid in one way or another. Far from reshaping our patently insane system, ObamaCare merely entrenches its most irrational elements …” [page 132]

    “[Health insurance companies] are not in the health-care business; they are in the claim-denying business. It makes as much economic sense to insure a sick person [with a preexisting condition] … as it does to insure a house that is already on fire.” [page 145]

    “The Democrats passed what is, in essence, a Republican health-care plan … ” Mr. Hodge stated that the Republicans opposed the plan “because they wished to deny the Democrats a legislative accomplishment.” [pages 148-149]

    The author, Roger D. Hodge, is not some kind of right-wing nut. He is a liberal! And his book has gotten endorsements from other liberals like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Naomi Wolf.

    Therefore, the opponents of ObamaCare are not merely a bunch of right-wing wackos, they are comprised of mainstream Americans and liberal intellectuals, too.