Well, this bill MUST be a good thing - because the evil Wall Street Journal thinks it's a bad thing. And we all know - what's bad for "Business" is GOOD for America! Pelosi's Health Care Means Rationing Politics - WSJ.com I'm glad the BBC and Canadian press have such a good handle on what Americans need and want - so they can balance out the WSJ!
Guys we've been having a grand old time here but maybe it's time to reel this back in. IF WE CONTINUE WITH CURRENT SYSTEM WE ARE SCREWED. Who do you think pays for all the under and un-insured medical bills here and now TODAY? You and Me thats who, well except Nate. Those health care providers are not eating that money they are passing it along to you and me via increased premiums Sooooo we can take a Conservative approach and not subsidize healthcare and pay for it by our healthcare premiums escalating. The "haves" can keep the illusion they are keeping it and to heck with the 'have nots" Or we can take the Dem's approach of being upfront and pay for it. In the meantime people likes Matt's daughter are screwed with pre-exisiting conditions as well as several 100K other people who bankrupt themselves cause they can't pay to have their gallbladder removed, etc. EITHER WAY WE ARE GOING TO PAY. Pick your poison boys and girls
Partially right. Either way we are going to have to pay. No one here (self included) is saying "do nothing". The debate is over what the most effective way to pay for it is going to be, and what real reforms can actually control costs, while maintaining quality, and improving access. Oh yeah... and supporting that pesky "liberty" thing that our problematic Constitution guarantees. As I've stated above - I'm more than willing to use public federal funds to help those who need help, and who (for whatever reason) can't be served by the private sector. What I'm not willing to do is stand silent while we approach a tipping point where the dependent class outnumbers the productive class. When we reach that tipping point, the land of liberty is doomed. Read Atlas Shrugged if you disagree. Read it again if you still disagree. Ayn Rand understood human nature, and especially understood the spirit of the producers. See also Union, Soviet. It's critically important that we peel back the onion and look at what the proposed changes will LIKELY DO vs. what those who are trying to sell them SAY THEY WILL DO. It's also critically important to take with a grain of salt claims such as "the Republicans are the party of 'no'" - when these Republicans have made MANY recommendations for improving the current system, but have not been allowed to the table by the "most inclusive and bi-partisan Administration ever". I will not attempt to defend the indefensible - such as why this wasn't addressed under the previous Administration or Congress. Bad for them. I have no illusions about who is paying for those who don't. But the fallacy that we're going to pay less somehow, and receive higher quality care and better access under what is being driven to a government system with no competition is just that... a fallacy. Comparisons to other systems don't really fit - the scale of what we're talking about here is quite different than the scale in the other "developed" countries you see us benchmarked against (Canada, UK, rest of Europe...). And, frankly, I hate to say it, but I think our government has devolved into more of a bureaucratic pay-for-play quagmire than many of those, more removed from the *real* best interests of the people. Others are free to disagree with me on this point. I haven't prepared a rigorous argument to defend it. But I sincerely believe it to be true. Am I saying that we become the USSR tomorrow if this thing passes? Of course not. What I'm saying is that this is continuing a 60 year slide down a slippery slope... and there's not much further down the slope we can slide. When we hit bottom, clawing our way back to the top will be a bit of a challenge. Many of the producers will decide it's time to retire to Alaska. I'm one of them.
Paul, In large part we agree. Glad you brought up the past admin point cause it was popping into my head. Too busy with a external war I suppose On another post I commented on my perception of Obama as pretty darn wily. Giving him too much credit? Anyway my theory is that they proposed a 'home run' overhaul fully expecting a huge upheaval and ultimately ready to accept a "double' let's pray REAL hard that despite ourselves we promulgate what is best for the country and make darn sure our reps in DC hear about it
Yeah. I'm sure they had this all planned out. Just like with Iran. Who has now told him to take a hike. And with the boycott of Fox News. Whose ratings skyrocketed. And with backing Zelaya in Honduras and calling what happened there a "coup"... in spite of the fact that what happened was clearly constitutional, and Zelaya was working to install himself as dictator for life. And with Russia, who with whom they thought they could buy support for Iranian sanctions by selling out Eastern Europe on missile defense on the anniversary of the invasion of Poland. I don't think the current Administration is "wily". At best, amateurs. At worst, I won't go there.
Civics 101: Legislation comes from the legislative branch. Which the Democrats controlled since 2006. Why didn't they start something? Especially since President Obama has basically outsourced all of this to Reid and Pelosi. Willing to put two more years of status quo ahead of the possibility of letting GW toke credit for something? Or some other reason?
Tackling what? Where has he taken a clear and firm stance on anything outside our borders that affected freedom and democracy? Oh that's right, I forgot the apology tour....:nonod:
Taken from WSJ article: - The vote was 220 to 215, with 39 House Democrats joining all but one Republican in opposition. Mrs. Pelosi had to cajole and bribe her way to the magic 218, and the list of her promises must be stacked to the ceiling. The lone Republican, Joseph Cao, represents a Democratic-leaning Louisiana district and extracted a promise that Mr. Obama would increase Medicaid payments to his state, and even then he only voted after Democrats had already hit 218. Let no one suggest this was the "bipartisan" health reform that Mr. Obama has long promised - Is this politics for the people or politics for the party? Money promised not because they have presented a need but to gain a vote so that one side can adorn themselves with a mask of bi-partisanship... This is exactly the sort of back door poitics that must be stopped.
Blimey and minimark, Looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on our opinions of the current admin and the former. To quote Blimey "I won't go there". I gotta admit I voted for the man both elections. John Kerry? C'mon. Worse of two evils. I did however really come to dislike the man in his 2nd term. My opinion I think what we can agree on is that we want to improve the healthcare in this country. We are going to pay for this whatever side of the aisle this comes from whether directly or indirectly
I'm definitely not a "Bush could do no wrong" guy. Tarp was a disaster. So was much of his domestic policy. Contrary to how he was labeled by the press, he was NOT a conservative. Gave conservatives a bad name.
Absolutely not. This is why we don't think either side can be entrusted with one sixth of our economy. This was nothing short of BRIBERY using our tax dollars to do it. Charges should be filed and all parties envolved prosecuted.. How much of our healthcare dollars will wind up being used in the same manner...After all she did promise more medicare money....did no other states need more medicare money?
Yeah, I was settling into this middle of the road with Republican leanings guy until Georgie's more heinous moves.
So - to stir the pot a bit more... Camille Paglia has an interesting point of view on this. Paglia and I have VERY little in common - she's an intellectual atheist lesbian Democrat, and I'm not. She and I diverge on many issues, as you might expect. But she's my favorite liberal writer, because she's very bright, she has a clear understanding of history, and she's intellectually honest in assessing current events. She and I have different visions of how you improve American society, and differing views on foreign policy - but we share a mostly-common view of what's happening, usually. The first half of this column is the relevant part: Salon.com | Pelosi's victory for women
well you do share lesbianism.......... Good article. She seems to hit it on the head sparing no one in either side of the aisle. Jesssshh what a mess
Only in America do we do a car wash to raise money for a child who has cancer etc..Wall street health care, hey lets get Goldman Sucks to do our health care they seem to be a caring bunch. Making a profit on the sick what a system !!
Good points. I think you're onto something. It's also despicable to make a profit on the homeless. Or the hungry. Or those who can't afford clothes or shoes or shelter or transportation. Gee - we should nationalize all home construction and mortgages and food production and restaurants and grocery stores and The Gap and Brooks Brothers and the automakers. Oh yeah... already taken care of the automakers. So only a few more industries we need to worry about.
Shocker! AP Poll: Americans fret over health overhaul costs - Yahoo! News When you ask poll questions that paint a Utopian world where everyone has "free healthcare".... most people favor the proposed government healthcare "reforms". When you ask poll questions that include some of the less Utopian consequences (like higher taxes, higher premiums, fines for noncompliance)... most people think this is a bad idea. Americans like lollipops and rainbows. Spankings? Not so much.
Nothing free in free healthcare.... Wonder how the polls would be if attached to the Healthcare Reform was the across the board tax increases that will be required if adopted? We simply cannot give these folks more power and money until there has been a Politiciancare Reform Bill passed......