Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Fox guarding the chicken house.

That essentially would require an abdication of power. Politicians do not like to have the public dictate information to them. Hand picked cherry pickers are required.

Who determines the experts?

Have each party pick recognized experts in their fields. Physicians, nurses, public health advocates, actuaries, the whole gamut.

If there is a division among those on the committee then there can be a majority and minority view.

It's entirely workable, but politicians aren't interested in making good choices, they're interested in taking credit.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
That's been my contention all along. I know health care needs reform, but it needs to be done right at the start. "Tweaking" something in place will be just as likely as fixing medicaid.

Get someone who knows what they are doing, get a report with an honest public assessment, option, costs, and likely repercussions, THEN legislate.

Never happen.

That is what should be done, and political gridlock may not be long term thing.

Let's say the Republicans balance out the Congress come November. Both sides have said they want reform, though that is defined differently for each Party right now. They will likely be closer together in their thinking with a new Congress. If the public tells them they want reform (doubtful based on current polling) they should be able to get together some action fairly quickly.

Who trusts anything coming out of Congress now? Time for real change. Relying on the recommendations of a blue ribbon panel, somewhat like what happened in Taiwan about 11 years ago, instead of a collection of partisan hacks and ideologues, would be a great start as people may then come to believe the analyses and the proposals.

One major issue that has to be acknowledged is that most people may bitch and moan about how much health care costs but they do not want to change the level of care they get. And they want ever better results from new technology, pharma and procedures. Factor in an aging population that will require and demand more care and you get significantly escalating costs no matter how you choose to pay it. I think this is where you get the argument for private sector solutions. Competition is the most efficient way to satisfy the greatest number as they can then vote with their wallets.

Don't look to UHC as being in the cards for the forseeable future. Even a well designed system for UHC like Taiwan's is running in serious deficit as politicians love to hand out entitlements but hate to face taxpayers with the bill. I expect the Republicans to fight for something close to a balanced budget in 2012. They are not likely to even come close, but they will be pushing down anything they can.

Obama and a Democrat dominated Congress may be all for wealth re-distribution and spreading other people's money around. Obama thinks he got elected to do that. The voters, however, are saying STFU and get going on getting us employed and stop taking the money out of our own pockets, and those of our kids and grandkids.

Temporary safety nets may be welcome but wealth re-distribution schemes, including UHC, have no chance in a down economy and slim chance when things are better.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Have each party pick recognized experts in their fields. Physicians, nurses, public health advocates, actuaries, the whole gamut.

If there is a division among those on the committee then there can be a majority and minority view.

It's entirely workable, but politicians aren't interested in making good choices, they're interested in taking credit.
workable from a laymens POV.

Politicians want experts to generate reports to point fingers - not come up with solutions to the problems.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
workable from a laymens POV.

Politicians want experts to generate reports to point fingers - not come up with solutions to the problems.


Most of the arguments have revolved around Democrats putting forward legislation and Republicans blocking it.

My contention is that the emphasis has been wrong. It should have been about how and what decisions were made, THEN the battle for the "political stance of dominance" could commence.

The only conclusion I can come to is that some people are so partisan that they really don't care about health care, they live for the fight.

Tilting at windmills.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
More delusion. The Dems CAN pass a good healthcare bill without things like the NE and LA 'bribery' - with over 50 Senators. It's the need for 60 that isn't working - there are some worse Dems and all the Repubs causing that, and the Repubs causing the 60 votes to be needed instead of 50 as they abuse the smallest minority in a very long time after losing so badly into a veto power.

Then take it to the public. Hold the hearings with expert testimony live on Cspan. Sure it will be a long process and I understand that the rulers have debated this issue for years but the American people have little knowledge of what and how you guys want to change things beyond a few talking points made to sound like we will be getting something for nothing. We have waited this long for healthcare, isn't another year well worth getting a good bill? I see nothing but positives for the Dems and the American people and potentially for the Reps too. OTOH, if they continue to obstruct every little thing it will all be very public and the voters will toss them out. As it is, you guys have given the Republicans a gift because now the Republicans are blocking a bad bill which most see as a good thing and regardless of what you wish them to think they will not blame the Republicans for the content of the Democrat written (or more accurately, the Health care industry written) bill.

You are just brainwashed. Everything the Republicans do they do for 'principle', you just say so no matter how evedent their motive is the basest, willing to leave millions uninsured because it pleases their donors.

Isn't it ironic that currently the Republicans are blocking a bill that would give enourmous sums of money to Big pharma and Health insurance companies while the Dems are trying everything they can to pass it?

From my viewpoint, the Dems no longer have the high road because they are trying to pass a bill they know is bad purely for political reasons. I don't, nor will I, buy the "building block" or "we will fix it later" crap. Yet here you are trying to argue that the Democrats motive is so much better than the Republicans and I am sorry but at this point it is not. The Dems motives has not been about the American people for months now it has been about getting any bill passed. FFS they wanted to rush even more just so Obama could use it as a talking point in the State of the Union address, again purely political.

You also argue about pleasing their donors, I am sorry to tell you but this bill has a ton of stuff in it thats only purpose is to please donors. Unfortunately every last one of them was written by and for Democrat donors. The union tax exemption alone proves this point so once again you can say the other side is doing it as well but their is currently legislation in both the house and senate proving the Democrats are doing the exact same thing at the expense of the people. You guys had the opportunity, and still do if willing, to take the morale high road but the legislation they authored proves they did not. You can try to blame it on the Republicans but the fact is the Democrats authored the bill and that is what voters will see. The argument that the Republicans forced you to write and pass bad legislation just doesn't cut it especially when the motive is now political and the results will affect damn near the entire country.


The very basic issue is that Democrats - with a mix of people with better and not so good intentions - have an overall desire to do something good for the American people with healthcare reform. The Republicans ever since President Truman brought it up and before that if it had been suggested, have opposed it out of an ideology based on the rich being the priority. When JFK pushed Medicare expansion in his campaign, Ronald Reagan entered Republican politics as the national spokeman for the industry to attack his plan as socialism. Oh, sorry, he was a really principle guy who only wanted the best for Americans' healthcare.

Perhaps the Democrats had an overall desire to do something good for the American people at one point but at this point in time that is not their desire. You and just about every other Democrat familiar with the issue realizes this too, the current desire is to do something good for the Democrat party by scoring political points and not appearing to have failed. You also know that even if the legislation is passed in its current form that they have still failed because the large majority of any "help" it provides will be for pharma and the insurance companies not the American people.

Demand that Obama keep his promise of transparency and then scrap the current bills. Put it all on C-span so that we can at least get experts and commentators opinions while the bill is being formed. Help the American people understand exactly how this is going to help them and how it will affect their lives and if you guys actually come up with a bill that is good for the American people the Republicans will not be able to simply be obstructionists.

Of course this will never happen. I bet the Dems would rather no bill than to do what I wrote above. It is obvious they have no problem harming us for purely political reasons so I am not nearly convinced that, aside from very few, they ever wanted to help us in the first place.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
And the Democratis state pay more in taxes to subsidize the Republican states who get more han they pay.

Dems fequently pay more under their proposals for the good of the country.

See, now its "us versus them" on a state level. I live in one of those dirty red neck filled (coonasses actually) Southern states that you are talking about. You bastards have no problem fucking up our marsh lands so that the great and almighty Northern states don't freeze during the winter. No problem with fucking up our levees while reaping the benefits of one of the largest ports in the world. No issue with drilling off of OUR shores while fucking us out of the same revenue sharing other states get while you demand that YOUR shores are kept free of that filth.

If you all think that us dumb backwoods southern folk are getting more than we provide I beg you to just cut us off. When 1/3 of your energy disappears overnight and you find out that you don't have the infrastructure to replace it if you could find it I bet you might change your tune. If not, we will still be just fine when we start collecting the revenue from the oil just a few miles off of our coasts that the Feds currently steal while not even helping to fund the recovery of our marsh lands lost in part due to the drilling.

You think $4 gas was bad, just wait until their is no gas to be had because you were tired of us dumb southerners getting more funds than we paid in. I would give up a years pay to be able to shut the LOOP down for a few weeks when I hear/read stuff like this. The rest of the country is getting of real damned cheap if you ask me and if I had my way you I guarantee it wouldn't take you long to agree.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
More delusion. The Dems CAN pass a good healthcare bill without things like the NE and LA 'bribery' - with over 50 Senators. It's the need for 60 that isn't working - there are some worse Dems and all the Repubs causing that, and the Repubs causing the 60 votes to be needed instead of 50 as they abuse the smallest minority in a very long time after losing so badly into a veto power.

You know why Republicans are against this bill? Because the public is against this bill. If those townhall meetings last August showed an overwhelming support for the "progressive" ideals, Obamacare would have been passed through the government and not include even a single bribe.

Oh, but you have a convenient answer for that too, you believe it is all faux outrage.

Sometimes you have to do the actual work, get your nose out of the "progressive" blog sites, and experience how the rest of the country actually feels.

You are just brainwashed. Everything the Republicans do they do for 'principle', you just say so no matter how evedent their motive is the basest, willing to leave millions uninsured because it pleases their donors.

I seem to recall "progressives" also pissed off at the mandate to buy insurance as well.

You are not rational here. We can go on all day with the same sort of thing from you and it's pointless.
You've never been rational.

The very basic issue is that Democrats - with a mix of people with better and not so good intentions - have an overall desire to do something good for the American people with healthcare reform.

And while they are good intentioned, sometimes it is more helpful for those in charge to recognize when they are incapable of providing the solution. Democrats didn't even give much effort to consulting those who *are* capable of providing the solutions. They pandered to fellow politicians, to "progressives", to unions. Why not have serious discussions with doctors, with hospitals, with current insurance companies (while I know you regard them as pure evil, it's very beneficial to listen to those who are running the operation you are trying to run better).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Then take it to the public. Hold the hearings with expert testimony live on Cspan. Sure it will be a long process and I understand that the rulers have debated this issue for years but the American people have little knowledge of what and how you guys want to change things beyond a few talking points made to sound like we will be getting something for nothing. We have waited this long for healthcare, isn't another year well worth getting a good bill? I see nothing but positives for the Dems and the American people and potentially for the Reps too. OTOH, if they continue to obstruct every little thing it will all be very public and the voters will toss them out. As it is, you guys have given the Republicans a gift because now the Republicans are blocking a bad bill which most see as a good thing and regardless of what you wish them to think they will not blame the Republicans for the content of the Democrat written (or more accurately, the Health care industry written) bill.
I don't have much problem with this, other than the naivewte that the Republican will get blamed for obscructionism. That's their game and the're good at it.

This approach has seemed to smack of more of Rahm Emanuel mistakes from his last experience with the Clitons, as that piece I linked said. Partner with the corporations, and it'll sail through.

Don't mistake that for the progressive agenda or approach.

Isn't it ironic that currently the Republicans are blocking a bill that would give enourmous sums of money to Big pharma and Health insurance companies while the Dems are trying everything they can to pass it?

Sort of but remember it'd also be a huge win for the indstries for it to not pass. too.

Not surprisingly they have a win-win here, if it passes or not.

[quote\From my viewpoint, the Dems no longer have the high road because they are trying to pass a bill they know is bad purely for political reasons.[/quote]

THat's partly true and partly false. They do want a bill to pass so badly it compromises their standard, but see Wolfe's good summary for why this is still a 'good very important bill' despite the flaws.

They're not as corrupt as you say, you take something with some truth and are exaggerating.

I don't, nor will I, buy the "building block" or "we will fix it later" crap. Yet here you are trying to argue that the Democrats motive is so much better than the Republicans and I am sorry but at this point it is not. The Dems motives has not been about the American people for months now it has been about getting any bill passed. FFS they wanted to rush even more just so Obama could use it as a talking point in the State of the Union address, again purely political.

Again, you are exaggerating. You may not understand or appreciate the 'momentum' issue, the idea that not passing something would be a big setback to any reform.

I don't blame you for feeling this is a good question - I do too. But you rush on to say all the Democrats are worthless corrupt bastard who have only bad intersts and care nothing for the people. It's not true.

THere is something to be said for winning a battle with a worse bill to help the issue make progress. You can argue if this bill is too bad for that to be the case, but ti doesn't make its advocates what you say.

You don't seem to realize that the many people who want good reform are enormously frustrated at winning the majorities in Congress to pass one and having this 60 vote requirement from Republocans stop them.

You also don't seem to hold the Republicans to any accountability for doing that, instead playing into their hands by blaming all the bad things needing 60 votes forces not on the Republicans for requiring it.

You also argue about pleasing their donors, I am sorry to tell you but this bill has a ton of stuff in it thats only purpose is to please donors.

I very much agree - starting with Emanuel's 'partner with corporations' approach and moreso in the Senate bill.

Unfortunately every last one of them was written by and for Democrat donors. The union tax exemption alone proves this point so once again you can say the other side is doing it as well but their is currently legislation in both the house and senate proving the Democrats are doing the exact same thing at the expense of the people.

THese are almost entirely about big industry donors who are happy to give to both parties. The Union thing is an exception - they got screwed especially badly, losing a lot and finally seeing a new tax.

It ended up being such a lousy deal for them they had it to oppose it without some concession. THat's doens't make their position 'bad for the American people', maybe the original change to the bill was bad?

You guys had the opportunity, and still do if willing, to take the morale high road but the legislation they authored proves they did not. You can try to blame it on the Republicans but the fact is the Democrats authored the bill and that is what voters will see. The argument that the Republicans forced you to write and pass bad legislation just doesn't cut it especially when the motive is now political and the results will affect damn near the entire country.

THere's some truth to that, but do recognize again that people who want to do something good faced with political difficlties having to make bad compromises doesn't make them doing immoral things exactly.

Remember Clinton for how useful it is to get nothing done having taken on the industry.

The Democrats have made mistakes, but don't ignore the rest of the situation, and the reson they've made some of them - the greedy interests of the industry, the political obstructionist insterests of Republicans.

If the Democrats just put up a wonderful moral bill and it has 55 votes and strong industry opposition and goes nowhere, what good is that?

Note, I'ce expressed interest in the Democrats doing just that - put up a good bill, and have it lose, so they have the moral high ground - but I understand the interest to get soem good things passed.

Again see Wolf's summary for that.


[qiuote]Perhaps the Democrats had an overall desire to do something good for the American people at one point but at this point in time that is not their desire.[/quote]

See above, don't confuse their wanting to do something good with the political problems.

You and just about every other Democrat familiar with the issue realizes this too, the current desire is to do something good for the Democrat party by scoring political points and not appearing to have failed. You also know that even if the legislation is passed in its current form that they have still failed because the large majority of any "help" it provides will be for pharma and the insurance companies not the American people.

That's partly true. See Wolf's summary for the casethat it's better than nothing.


Demand that Obama keep his promise of transparency and then scrap the current bills. Put it all on C-span so that we can at least get experts and commentators opinions while the bill is being formed. Help the American people understand exactly how this is going to help them and how it will affect their lives and if you guys actually come up with a bill that is good for the American people the Republicans will not be able to simply be obstructionists.

Of course this will never happen. I bet the Dems would rather no bill than to do what I wrote above. It is obvious they have no problem harming us for purely political reasons so I am not nearly convinced that, aside from very few, they ever wanted to help us in the first place.

I don't really have any problem with youru suggestion - but you seem to think Dems have some evil plan to hurt people, and a naivete about the Republicans getting hld accountable for obstructionism.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
See, now its "us versus them" on a state level. I live in one of those dirty red neck filled (coonasses actually) Southern states that you are talking about. You bastards have no problem fucking up our marsh lands so that the great and almighty Northern states don't freeze during the winter. No problem with fucking up our levees while reaping the benefits of one of the largest ports in the world. No issue with drilling off of OUR shores while fucking us out of the same revenue sharing other states get while you demand that YOUR shores are kept free of that filth.

If you all think that us dumb backwoods southern folk are getting more than we provide I beg you to just cut us off. When 1/3 of your energy disappears overnight and you find out that you don't have the infrastructure to replace it if you could find it I bet you might change your tune. If not, we will still be just fine when we start collecting the revenue from the oil just a few miles off of our coasts that the Feds currently steal while not even helping to fund the recovery of our marsh lands lost in part due to the drilling.

You think $4 gas was bad, just wait until their is no gas to be had because you were tired of us dumb southerners getting more funds than we paid in. I would give up a years pay to be able to shut the LOOP down for a few weeks when I hear/read stuff like this. The rest of the country is getting of real damned cheap if you ask me and if I had my way you I guarantee it wouldn't take you long to agree.

Once you have a southernor defensive that he's been looked down on, you aren't going to get him to agree what month it is.

I can't discuss the marshland issues or even the oil issues much (I heard California is the only state getting no fees at all for its off-shore oil). My comments are more about the main tax in/tax out federal budget.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Once you have a southernor defensive that he's been looked down on, you aren't going to get him to agree what month it is.

I can't discuss the marshland issues or even the oil issues much (I heard California is the only state getting no fees at all for its off-shore oil). My comments are more about the main tax in/tax out federal budget.

Why would you use Tax in/tax out alone to "value" a states continuation?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The ironic thing is he wouldn't "value" and individual in that manner. He is the typical liberal/progressive hypocrite.

And the virtual 100% rate of right-wingers who lie about my position as the basis for their opinions, showing the error of ther ways and of their opinions, adds another lie.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Why would you use Tax in/tax out alone to "value" a states continuation?

Try to follow the topic. Someone attacked liberals for not contributing as much private charity as right-wingers. I agree that's the case, but pointed out liberals' higher willingness to pay more taxes as their way of getting good things done society, paying more to get goals done with the priorities assigned by the people's voting at least in theory.

You're the one trying to twist the topic into something it's not, 'the value of a state's contribution'.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Try to follow the topic. Someone attacked liberals for not contributing as much private charity as right-wingers. I agree that's the case, but pointed out liberals' higher willingness to pay more taxes as their way of getting good things done society, paying more to get goals done with the priorities assigned by the people's voting at least in theory.

You're the one trying to twist the topic into something it's not, 'the value of a state's contribution'.

Huh?

When you donate to a charity you directly impact whatever cause you donate money towards. When you pay taxes the cause gets pennies on the dollar back as the money goes through levels of bureaucracy.

Do you think a central authority has a better idea of what your communities need or do you think that you know what your community needs?

Do you think that a population should be able to control its social priorities or do you think that money should be handed out as political favors?

"Progressives" are all about control. They don't like the individual making their own decisions. This is evident in Craig234's posts.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Huh?

When you donate to a charity you directly impact whatever cause you donate money towards. When you pay taxes the cause gets pennies on the dollar back as the money goes through levels of bureaucracy.

Do you think a central authority has a better idea of what your communities need or do you think that you know what your community needs?

Do you think that a population should be able to control its social priorities or do you think that money should be handed out as political favors?

"Progressives" are all about control. They don't like the individual making their own decisions. This is evident in Craig234's posts.

And the righties' virtual 100% rate of llying about my position has another lie added.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I don't have much problem with this, other than the naivewte that the Republican will get blamed for obscructionism. That's their game and the're good at it.

This approach has seemed to smack of more of Rahm Emanuel mistakes from his last experience with the Clitons, as that piece I linked said. Partner with the corporations, and it'll sail through.

Don't mistake that for the progressive agenda or approach.

Sort of but remember it'd also be a huge win for the indstries for it to not pass. too.

Not surprisingly they have a win-win here, if it passes or not.

[From my viewpoint, the Dems no longer have the high road because they are trying to pass a bill they know is bad purely for political reasons.]

THat's partly true and partly false. They do want a bill to pass so badly it compromises their standard, but see Wolfe's good summary for why this is still a 'good very important bill' despite the flaws.

They're not as corrupt as you say, you take something with some truth and are exaggerating.

Perhaps, but they are not nearly as good as you say either. Look, I don't think any of them or either parties is inherently evil who want nothing more than to hurt America. However, it has become very apparent that neither side puts the American people first. Their interests in order are getting reelected, their party (mostly because it helps them get reelected) and then the American people.

Again, you are exaggerating. You may not understand or appreciate the 'momentum' issue, the idea that not passing something would be a big setback to any reform.

I don't really buy this either. Momentum works both ways and I can't imagine the American people, many who will be seeing tax increases long before the small benefits of the bill even kick in, will see that as something good which needs to be expanded. It could very easily turn out that because of the way this turned out that even those who might have supported reform simply don't want Congress to fuck things up anymore than they have.

Its a risky gamble imo, with very high stakes and little potential gain. I am sorry but the alternatives are much better than passing a bad bill for momentum.

I don't blame you for feeling this is a good question - I do too. But you rush on to say all the Democrats are worthless corrupt bastard who have only bad intersts and care nothing for the people. It's not true.

THere is something to be said for winning a battle with a worse bill to help the issue make progress. You can argue if this bill is too bad for that to be the case, but ti doesn't make its advocates what you say.

The entire process has been a huge joke. Yes the Republicans share a lot of blame, I understand that but at the same time I think you fail to either admit or realize how much help the Democrats gave them. If the Dems would have done this right from the start I don't think the Republicans could have obstructed nearly as much. When you basically keep the American people in the dark during the majority of the process it is real easy for the other side to use "Death panels", when they are calling a vote on a 2K+ page bill hours after the members recieved the bill it gives the other side tons of ammo. My point is simple, stop helping them and the way you do that is beneficial to everyone because we are more involved, we understand better, and we don't feel like its a rush job written in smokey backrooms with bribe after bribe thrown in that is voted upon before its been read.

You might have answers for some of these things but try getting the majority of the American populace to buy that. If there would have been an expert panel and testimony that had already taken place all televised on C-span there is no way the death panel thing would have gotten the traction it did.

You don't seem to realize that the many people who want good reform are enormously frustrated at winning the majorities in Congress to pass one and having this 60 vote requirement from Republocans stop them.

You also don't seem to hold the Republicans to any accountability for doing that, instead playing into their hands by blaming all the bad things needing 60 votes forces not on the Republicans for requiring it.

You keep going back to the 60 votes needed but I bet you will appreciate that when the Republicans take the house and senate back and it will happen. As far as the Republicans share of the blame, I agree. If you want to start a thread calling out all the bad things the Republicans did to get us here that is fine. However, I would prefer to talk about how to move forward. The Dems are in control and will craft whatever legislation we eventually get so I think it is more productive to talk about how we go about killing this bill and getting a much better bill with a process that greatly increases the public's awareness and knowledge. Considering this is what we were promised I don't think that it is to much to demand.

THese are almost entirely about big industry donors who are happy to give to both parties. The Union thing is an exception - they got screwed especially badly, losing a lot and finally seeing a new tax.

It ended up being such a lousy deal for them they had it to oppose it without some concession. THat's doens't make their position 'bad for the American people', maybe the original change to the bill was bad?

We disagree completely here. The rest of us negotiate are compensation packages just like the unions do. My health insurance is a very large part of what my employer compensates me just like the unions. The difference is I am not a major contributor to a political party so I get to pay the tax while they get a break. Read that again, I am getting taxed heavily on my healthcare simply because I am not in a union or some bigtime Democrat sponsor. How can you even begin to defend that? If the tax is that bad it should have been removed all together but instead I get punished for not being in a union. It is bad when you pass legislation intending to help out corporations who helped elect you but when you start selectively taxing people who did not help elect you, that is so far over the line it is truly amazing they even attempted it.

Keep in mind, I am not blaming the unions as they are simply looking out for their members interests. That is the unions job. If it was that bad for the unions, whose compensation package is not very different from a lot of non-union Americans, the entire tax should have been modified or scraped. This is corruption pure and simple and I wish that your party would take the high road on issues like this and not tolerate it.

Perception and reality are two different things but due to actions like this the perception is the Democrats are just as corrupt as the other side. On this particular issue, they would be absolutely correct in my book. I haven't even gotten into the huge loss of revenue by taking a large chunk of the "cadillac" plans out of the tax pool, why leave it in at all?


THere's some truth to that, but do recognize again that people who want to do something good faced with political difficlties having to make bad compromises doesn't make them doing immoral things exactly.

Compromise is just fine but I damn sure don't compromise my morals when running my business. Even if you give them some slack, the compromises made in this bill go so far that the bill helps the wrong people while placing larger burdens on people who simply can't afford them. It actually guarantees that my health insurance costs will go up, I thought the intent was to reduce our costs? At least Big Pharma and the Health insurance companies get to pay bigger bonuses next year right? Come on, the chance to pass good legislation still exists while simultaneously gaining a ton of political support AND potentially putting all those dirty tricks the Republicans use on a play by play display for all to see. Who loses by doing this? OTOH, pass the current legislation and I, along with a lot of other Americans, lose.

The Democrats have made mistakes, but don't ignore the rest of the situation, and the reson they've made some of them - the greedy interests of the industry, the political obstructionist insterests of Republicans.

And I am trying to have a discussion about how we can start the process over and remove or limit those obstacles in a way that benefits the public.


I
If the Democrats just put up a wonderful moral bill and it has 55 votes and strong industry opposition and goes nowhere, what good is that?

Done the right way it could force the people against it to either get behind it or be replaced. Americans WANT healthcare reform but they want it to be good. You put up good legislation that doesn't have the bullshit bribes, industry handouts, and selectively removing your supporters from paying the tab AND you help the American people understand it during the entire process I can all but guarantee you they will get behind it en-mass.


That's partly true. See Wolf's summary for the casethat it's better than nothing.
I don't really have any problem with youru suggestion - but you seem to think Dems have some evil plan to hurt people, and a naivete about the Republicans getting hld accountable for obstructionism.

As I said, I don't mind putting blame were blame is do but right now I am concerned with stopping this bill from passing and then getting the ball rolling on a good bill.

PS: Mind pm'ing me the topic and post number of Wolf's summary you are making reference too?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Try to follow the topic. Someone attacked liberals for not contributing as much private charity as right-wingers. I agree that's the case, but pointed out liberals' higher willingness to pay more taxes as their way of getting good things done society, paying more to get goals done with the priorities assigned by the people's voting at least in theory.

You're the one trying to twist the topic into something it's not, 'the value of a state's contribution'.

Liberals continually bash my state and they always do so with the implication that we take in more than we pay out. Give me 5 minutes and I guarantee I can find a dozen posts by people who share the vast majority of your ideals saying that we should leave the union, not be rebuilt after natural disasters (with the majority of the damage caused by poorly built levees, wanna guess who built em?), backwards, racists, etc...

All while the Feds fuck us out of money that is rightfully ours damaging our wetlands in the process. That makes us more vulnerable to hurricanes and again they have been completely unwilling to help us rebuild them in any meaningful way. Wanna talk about a "worst case scenario" situation for the entire nation, do a little reading on the LOOP and think about what happens if it goes down due to either disaster or terrorism. The north would be in for a very cold winter, fuel used for electricity production is greatly reduced and gas will be virtually unfindable at any price.

But we are the bad guys.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I found the following article to be an excellent synopsis of the issue and spot on in taking the form of an obituary. :D

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/25/health-care-reform-rip/



Monday, January 25, 2010


An Obit for Health Care Reform

Terry Michael

Terry Michael is a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee; his "thoughts from a libertarian Democrat" are collected at www.terrymichael.net.

Health Care Reform (HCR) died Jan. 19 in Massachusetts, shortly before his 19th birthday. He was a victim of a mass suicide pact by economic left-liberals swilling Kool-Aid they've been drinking for years to satisfy a thirsty obsession for replacing marketplace accountability with government mandates.

Though he lived a short and troubled life, HCR captured the imagination of the Media and Democratic Political Consultants throughout the land for almost two decades.

"Reform," as he was known in the popular press - usually without the quotes - was born in 1991, the son of Medicare and Medicaid, who survive (barely), both children of the '60s. Also surviving (and sucking up tax dollars like mother's milk) is Reform's baby sister, DOPE (Drugs for Old People Everywhere), the one-night-stand, 2003 love child of a menage a trois that included Medicare, Medicaid and the oxymoronic hustler Big Government Conservative Republican Karl "W." Rove.

The unfortunate victim of Democratic hubris was pre-deceased by his grandfather, Mr. Tax Exempt Health Insurance, born around 1947, the bastard child of Wage Price Controls and Big Labor Unions. (Though both great-grandparents are dead, their ghosts haunt the fruited plains, from sea to shining sea, leading the gullible to believe you can have a free health care lunch if you divorce Mr. Price from Mrs. Choice.)

Reform was reared in Pennsylvania during the 1991 special election for the U.S. Senate seat that opened when Sen. John Heinz died in a helicopter crash. The appointed Sen. Harris Wofford, a liberal Democrat, adopted Reform on the advice of his consultants, skilled politicized medicine practitioners, James Carville and Paul Begala. Dressing little Reform in populist clothes, the pair had Mr. Wofford kiss baby Reform at every whistle-stop while railing against the evil insurance companies and Big Pharma firms who stood in Reform's way.

Mr. Wofford went from 30 points down to a 10-point victory, which made the baby Reform famous throughout the Democratic populist land. Overnight, Reform became a sensation and was readopted by William Jefferson Clinton and his bride, Hillary, when Professor Carville and Dr. Begala took their populist protege to the 1992 Clinton campaign, in which the child competed with his cousin Welfare Reform for national attention.

To make a long story short, Hillary loved that child Reform so much that she persuaded Bill to let her bring him to the White House. But after an awful first year, Reform became ill in 1993. A tough little guy, he survived on life support for years, while cousin Welfare was embraced by Bill as the new-and-improved Reform after a little political unhappiness for the nation's First Political Couple occurred in 1994.

But Reform, by then a teenager, got his second big break. The presumptive presidential nominee for 2008, Ms. HillaryCare, trotted out her stepchild and made him the centerpiece of her campaign for Leader of the Free Health Care World! That left the self-appointed trial lawyer to the underclass, John Edwards, and the upstart from Illinois, Barack Obama, no choice. They had to produce their own Health Care Reform babies (which Mr. Edwards took a little too literally, it was later learned).

Hope prevailed, and Mr. Obama won the race. And Reform got a new daddy, who declared he loved Reform so much, he would stake his political life on the boy.

Alas, the rest is history. Crazy Tea-Partiers all but smothered the teenager in the summer of his 18th year, and then some Cosmo centerfold came out of nowhere to seal Reform's fate shortly before his 19th birthday, when angry voters in a state made famous by a tea party dumped the Democrats overboard. Reform drowned in a sea of left-liberal Kool-Aid.

Funeral services will be private, as the family now wishes to keep Reform to itself. In lieu of flowers, they request donations be made to the Democratic House and Senatorial campaign committees.
:awe: