For progressives: should the healthcare bill be opposed?

[Ausm]

es, but you forget that the "reform" that many have in mind is only going to increase the expenses even further, and at the same time reduce the type of healthcare we get. We spend way too much, but without fixing the cost itself, no bill is going to make anything better, only worse and more expensive.

You fail to realize that the reason why it will increase costs is because of the congressman/women who are bought off by the insurance companies who have effectively stripped out this reform in the Senate bill as it stands now.

 

[bamacre]

It isn't the GOP they are making deals with, it's the health care industry.

 

[mumedina]

No, I don't support it. Nothing that was promised or that I hoped would be included is. At this point, it just seems like they are trying to pass something, anything really, just so they can say they did something. All people who bought Obama's message should be outraged at not just the health care bill, but also the failures in Guantanamo Bay, the fact that more troops were sent to Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, etc. Like I've said many times, the problem is not Obama himself, as I am sure he is a well intentioned person, but the monstrously corrupt system of government we have.

 

[Generator]

Kill it. Let the baby boomers rot and die in the street.

 

[ayabe]

Medicare and Medicaid have seen double digit increases in cost as well. This bill wont address any of that anyways.

Sure, I realize that. Which is why inaction really isn't viable.

This bill is a crock, but it wasn't always the case.

10 years from now we're going to be facing bankruptcy, benefits will be reduced dramatically and taxes will also have to be increased substantially.

A lot of the people currently standing in the way will be dead by then, so what do they care? As long as the guv'ment keeps its hands off their Medicare, right?

 

[Zebo]

No, I don't support it. Nothing that was promised or that I hoped would be included is. At this point, it just seems like they are trying to pass something, anything really, just so they can say they did something. All people who bought Obama's message should be outraged at not just the health care bill, but also the failures in Guantanamo Bay, the fact that more troops were sent to Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, etc. Like I've said many times, the problem is not Obama himself, as I am sure he is a well intentioned person, but the monstrously corrupt system of government we have.

Obama has never used his power and his natural gifts taking this issue to the American people (fireside chats). He says populist things then does just the opposite behind closed doors with almost every huge issue such as banking, renditions/prisoner treatment, patriot act, warfare, HC, etc... To deny his culpability as naivete or being run over is insulting to his intelligence.

So either he's dumb and ineffective or bought pick one. I don't like either in a president.

 

[Ausm]

The Whitehouse was the healthcare's bill biggest enemy. I think Obama better do an about face fast or he is going be a 1 term president.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/17/csi-washington-who-killed-drug-imports/

 

[HumblePie]

Obama has never used his power and his natural gifts taking this issue to the American people (fireside chats). He says populist things then does just the opposite behind closed doors with almost every huge issue such as banking, renditions/prisoner treatment, patriot act, warfare, HC, etc... To deny his culpability as naivete or being run over is insulting to his intelligence.

So either he's dumb and ineffective or bought pick one. I don't like either in a president.

I wouldn't go that far yet... but really what was the alternative we were given? An old man with alhzheimers and one foot in the grave with a bimbo who couldn't find Africa on the globe with 50 assistants helping her?

Still, he did come into a screwed up situation and he is dealing with major tards from both sides. So far though, he hasn't made a "major foul up" decision yet. He could if he pushes this bill through as is with the mandates for individual citizens and other crap. At that point, I will be as pissed off as the next person. However, until it happens or comes close, right now it is still just all farts in the wind.

 

[Ausm]

Obama has never used his power and his natural gifts taking this issue to the American people (fireside chats). He says populist things then does just the opposite behind closed doors with almost every huge issue such as banking, renditions/prisoner treatment, patriot act, warfare, HC, etc... To deny his culpability as naivete or being run over is insulting to his intelligence.

So either he's dumb and ineffective or bought pick one. I don't like either in a president.

The problem is that his inner circle is giving him TERRIBLE advice imo.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree with this part. President Obama actually thinks he could negotiate with the Grand Obstruction Party in good faith. What a waste of fucking time. But I do believe there is room to pass a decent "starter bill" if they have go to the reconciliation root.

What "bipartisanship"? The gutting of the Senate bill has been from negotiations with democrats . I even read that the Republicans haven't even been allowed to read the final bill which is being drafted behind closed doors (could be exaggerated, don't remember where I read it). Irregardless, you can't blame this one on the Republicans bud. The Democrats own this fuckup.

 

[Zebo]

I wouldn't go that far yet... but really what was the alternative we were given? An old man with alhzheimers and one foot in the grave with a bimbo who couldn't find Africa on the globe with 50 assistants helping her?

Still, he did come into a screwed up situation and he is dealing with major tards from both sides. So far though, he hasn't made a "major foul up" decision yet. He could if he pushes this bill through as is with the mandates for individual citizens and other crap. At that point, I will be as pissed off as the next person. However, until it happens or comes close, right now it is still just all farts in the wind.

Between the two, no brainier but Obama saddens me having so much potential.

Funny thing about "major foul ups" is you don't see them until much later. I would argue reckless and inappropriately directed spending has pushed us past the point of no return of solvency. We will see.

 

[HumblePie]

Between the two, no brainier but Obama saddens me having so much potential.

Funny thing about "major foul ups" is you don't see them until much later. I would argue reckless and inappropriately directed spending has pushed us past the point of no return of solvency. We will see.

I haven't the foresight to see into the future if all this spending is going to finally be the fork in us before someone yells "done!" I rather not see all this money going who knows where, and I would love to see us stop borrowing from everywhere. Especially stop borrowing from China.

Regardless, we need some major fixes put in place to start America back on the road to sanity. I'm all for private industry, big business, and corporate america.. to a point. Without them we wouldn't have computers, cars, and many other things we enjoy. But there comes a point when they step over bounds and need to be set right. Collusion, corruptions, price fixing, laundering, and a plethora of crap done by corporate America and letting them have free reign is screwing people over. That's only part of the problem. There is the theory that in a lightly regulated free economy it should correct it self. And maybe it will. But not before it gets a WHOLE lot worse. To the point it pushes us all into poverty or worse. Then again, it may never reach that.

I do think something should be done through minor correcting regulations though to fix stuff. The problem comes with enforcement which costs money. That I can deal with. I am all for spending a tad now as an investment to fix crap and pay us all back more in the end. I am NOT for willy nilly, who knows where the buck is going, spending. Hillary and her we need to give $100 billion a year away to poor developing countries can suck my left nut.


Like I said, I am neither conservative nor liberal. Neither Demo or Repub. I like to call myself one thing only. Sane.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The bill should be killed and a bill to transform the American health care system into the British or French system should be introduced. Politicians can then support or oppose that at their peril.

 

[woolfe9999]

My take is that the bill was already eviscerated before the public option was removed. The version of the public option included in Reid's bill was not robust enough to compete with private insurance, and would have done very little, if anything, to contain costs. In other words, this fight was already lost by the time the bill got to the Senate. Even the house version is merely "pretty good." So in a sense, progressives are angry about the most recent compromises to the right wing of the party, yet those compromises are probably meaningless because what is lost was already lost.

That said, obviously you should not have mandates to buy private insurance, and taxpayor subsidies to help buy that insurance, without any real cost containment, or else it is just corporate welfare for the insurance industry. This isn't half a loaf. Half a loaf is still half a loaf, but this is more like a body missing a couple of its limbs. It's a defective idea.

There's a legitimate debate over whether passing or killing this current bill is good or bad for America, and also whether it is good or bad for democrats. That debate turns on which scenario will get us real reform sooner: a bad bill that lays some groundwork but has to be fixed, or no bill and an eventual crisis in healthare costs that will mean we will have to have real reform. I don't know the answer to that question and I don't pretend to.

I'd rather talk about this concept of reconciliation. I think I partially understand what it is, but not fully. As I understand it, the Senate can get this passed with 51 votes, but only if it jettisons the insurance reform portions of the bill and sticks with those portions that involve spending and revenues, right?

If I've gotten that correct, then the Senate can pass a bill that provides subsidies to buy insurance, a very robust public option, medicaid and medicare expansions, and revenue provisions to pay for it all, so long as they dump out all the insurance reform? If that is correct, then I don't understand why they just don't do it. The reform provisions are actually far less controversial and can be tackled at some later time. Do the reform provisions even matter so much if you have a robust public option, and one which won't, for example, deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

In the alternative, assuming that there is some good reason to not go the way of budget reconciliation that I am not aware of, they can go the opposite route: dump the subsidies and the mandates, and just pass the reform portions of the bill. It won't cover that many more people, but the reform provisions are generally pretty good, and it gets rid of the core defect here, which is to have mandates and subsidies with no cost control. That really would be a legitimate half loaf, good reform without the downsides. Covering more people can come later.

I guess I just don't understand why these two broad aspects of the bill must be linked in a way that is causing the entire package to become deformed through this process of political compromise. It seems to me they should either use reconciliation, or else break out the non-controversial reform stuff and get that passed instead.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The most important thing is that Dems beat the Reps or vice versa. Party Über Alles.

 

[Ausm]

What "bipartisanship"? The gutting of the Senate bill has been from negotiations with democrats . I even read that the Republicans haven't even been allowed to read the final bill which is being drafted behind closed doors (could be exaggerated, don't remember where I read it). Irregardless, you can't blame this one on the Republicans bud. The Democrats own this fuckup.

Last time I checked Senator Olympia Snowe is a member of the Republican party and the democrats spent months trying to get her vote.

 

[Craig234]

What "bipartisanship"? The gutting of the Senate bill has been from negotiations with democrats . I even read that the Republicans haven't even been allowed to read the final bill which is being drafted behind closed doors (could be exaggerated, don't remember where I read it). Irregardless, you can't blame this one on the Republicans bud. The Democrats own this fuckup.

That's not the thread topic, but since youi posted it, I want to say it's wrong.

Say seven friends, three in one group (male, Republican, whatever) and four in the other (female, Democrat, whatever) are deciding where ot have dinner.

The group of three says immediately "we are going to vote against anything but McDonalds."

Three of the four others are suggesting steakhouses, BBQ, French - but their fourth member finally says "naw, McDonalds sounds good."

If you walked up to this group chewing their Big Macs, would you say to the ones who wanted steak, "hey, you can't balme your being at McDonalds on the guys/Republicans, the women/Democrats did that"?

Of course not. Just because the Republicans are clear in their obstructionism and objection to any real universal healthcare program doesn't mean you can say they don't deserve blame for not getting it.

When the vote is 50 Dems and zero Republicans for the more progressive items, but several dems vote to block it with Republicans, you can't say 'that's the Democrats' fault and not the Republicans'.

You CAN say the minotry of Dems are to blame along with the Republicans, but now what you said that the Republcans have nothing to do with the problem and are blameless.

 

[chucky2]

That's not the thread topic, but since youi posted it, I want to say it's wrong.

Say seven friends, three in one group (male, Republican, whatever) and four in the other (female, Democrat, whatever) are deciding where ot have dinner.

The group of three says immediately "we are going to vote against anything but McDonalds."

Three of the four others are suggesting steakhouses, BBQ, French - but their fourth member finally says "naw, McDonalds sounds good."

If you walked up to this group chewing their Big Macs, would you say to the ones who wanted steak, "hey, you can't balme your being at McDonalds on the guys/Republicans, the women/Democrats did that"?

Of course not. Just because the Republicans are clear in their obstructionism and objection to any real universal healthcare program doesn't mean you can say they don't deserve blame for not getting it.

When the vote is 50 Dems and zero Republicans for the more progressive items, but several dems vote to block it with Republicans, you can't say 'that's the Democrats' fault and not the Republicans'.

You CAN say the minotry of Dems are to blame along with the Republicans, but now what you said that the Republcans have nothing to do with the problem and are blameless.

This analogy could work, except:

The 4 aren't friends with the other 3, they're rivals. The 4 also don't have to worry about doing anything the 3 want, nor do the 3 expect them to. The 4 then, not only don't get the steak they want, they don't even get McD's...they decide to order garbage instead. Then, when all 7 have eaten it, and they're far sicker than if they'd just gone hungry (ordered nothing), the 4 have the gall to suggest it was the 3 wanting McD's that got them there.

See, now your analogy is starting to get accurate! :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wait, there is legislation addressing health care? When did that happen?

 

[bamacre]

That's not the thread topic, but since youi posted it, I want to say it's wrong.

Say seven friends, three in one group (male, Republican, whatever) and four in the other (female, Democrat, whatever) are deciding where ot have dinner.

The group of three says immediately "we are going to vote against anything but McDonalds."

Three of the four others are suggesting steakhouses, BBQ, French - but their fourth member finally says "naw, McDonalds sounds good."

If you walked up to this group chewing their Big Macs, would you say to the ones who wanted steak, "hey, you can't balme your being at McDonalds on the guys/Republicans, the women/Democrats did that"?

Of course not. Just because the Republicans are clear in their obstructionism and objection to any real universal healthcare program doesn't mean you can say they don't deserve blame for not getting it.

When the vote is 50 Dems and zero Republicans for the more progressive items, but several dems vote to block it with Republicans, you can't say 'that's the Democrats' fault and not the Republicans'.

You CAN say the minotry of Dems are to blame along with the Republicans, but now what you said that the Republcans have nothing to do with the problem and are blameless.

LOL, and where exactly are the health insurance companies and their lobbying in that analogy? Once again, it's the GOP that gets the blame instead of all the politicians shaping and manipulating this bill with corporate interest in mind in lieu of the people. It's just a picture perfect view of government intervention and management of the market. The corporations get their way, and the American people get the shaft. Again and again.

 

[Ausm]

LOL, and where exactly are the health insurance companies and their lobbying in that analogy? Once again, it's the GOP that gets the blame instead of all the politicians shaping and manipulating this bill with corporate interest in mind in lieu of the people. It's just a picture perfect view of government intervention and management of the market. The corporations get their way, and the American people get the shaft. Again and again.

I wouldn't blame the Republican's for this because they did fuckall to reform our broken healthcare system when they were in control of Congress and they are supplying the same effort in this go around.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL, and where exactly are the health insurance companies and their lobbying in that analogy? Once again, it's the GOP that gets the blame instead of all the politicians shaping and manipulating this bill with corporate interest in mind in lieu of the people. It's just a picture perfect view of government intervention and management of the market. The corporations get their way, and the American people get the shaft. Again and again.

What's great are the expert opinions by people who have never treated someone. That pending legislation is beneficial is based entirely on faith.

It seems that there are more than one kind of cult. In this case it isn't about a god, but about political philosophy.

So much for separation of Church and State. If one objects, then one is a heretic. The Church of Government must not be questioned.

 

[Darwin333]

Last time I checked Senator Olympia Snowe is a member of the Republican party and the democrats spent months trying to get her vote.

Last time I checked they didn't need her vote nor are they going to get it. If they spent months trying to get MY vote, including (but not limited to) gutting their own bill for my vote they will never get, that wouldn't mean they were trying to be "bipartisan" that would mean they are idiots.


BTW, who in the hell came up with the idea that if ONE person from the other party votes on a bill that is now "bipartisan".

 

[bamacre]

I wouldn't blame the Republican's for this because they did fuckall to reform our broken healthcare system when they were in control of Congress and they are supplying the same effort in this go around.

That I can agree with, in fact I have posted this before elsewhere. To put it briefly, I told the Republicans here that if they wanted to bitch about the Democrat's health care plan, they should be bitching at their own party for doing nothing while they held power for 6 straight years. Although, I shouldn't say "did nothing," because they passed Medicare D, which only made the problem worse.

 

[Darwin333]

I wouldn't blame the Republican's for this because they did fuckall to reform our broken healthcare system when they were in control of Congress and they are supplying the same effort in this go around.

Plenty of blame for the Republicans to go around. They have been bought and paid for quite a few times in the last 8 years. This time its the Democrats turn to show who owns them and the obvious answer is the insurance/big pharma companies.