Mook, did it ever occur to you that perhaps the "conservatives" in office during the Bush Administration weren't small government types? Recognize that those people don't have the same "priorities" as someone on the left. Health care wasn't high on the list, and the War on Terror crowded a lot of stuff out.
Hmm. Not according to the American people: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan
Rasmussen just came out with a poll today showing that 57% of Americans support a health care reform with a public option. They did a separate poll showing 34% of Americans would support health care reform without it. I don't have time to go get the link but I'm sure you guys can find it. It was released today, as opposed to the Rasmussen poll maxiep linked that was done like five days ago.
Capitulate is the word I am thinking of. People talk like the Republicans are horrible for not compromising on something they don't want in any way shape or form. They are horrible but I think it is because they spent unGodly amounts of money over the last decade. I hate studies that are funded by our tax money but I would like one example of how they are actually trying to fix anything except by spending more of my earnings on it. I just spent 2 hours in the DMV because the fucking government sent my new driver's license in the mail. I didn't get it. After 2 hours and watching the numbers go from 280 to 296 in two hours and then realizing that my number was 356 I got up and left. I got into the Emergency Room at the hospital twice as fast the other night...so once again.... How are these fucking ASSHOLES IN CONGRESS AND OBAMA going to fix healthcare? What I saw was 900 homeless people or meth addicts trying to get drugs. FIX THAT YOU FUCKERS.
Well, since we want to start making drugs legal so we can tax them, I'd say the problem's going to solve itself, right?
It's the fact that they don't want to compromise on anything. They want to make this a great failure so they can show what a fantastic party they are. There have been several compromises by Democrats or attempts at compromises in the past week. But the Republicans do not budge an inch. If that's what you consider playing on conviction and not being partisan, then what the @#$% is your problem with Dems doing the same thing? Anyone who has seen politics knows the Republicans are playing politics to a high degree here. The Dems did it before when they were out of power, the Republicans are doing it now. The difference is the Dems actually did work with Bush and the Republicans on a few items where the Republicans so far just plant their heels in the ground and refuse to budge. Exactly how does this benefit anyone? One of two things is going to happen in the next two years. The Republicans are going to figure out that, crap, they need to actually work together to fix America and get some of their ideas implemented even if it does mean a compromise. Otherwise the Dems will just go "screw em" and write whatever the hell they want for two years. Do you want some or none? Because for 8 years you've had ALL and now asking the Dems to bend over again ain't going to happen Charlie. As for the rest of your post I might suggest a nice glass of wine and some time in a dark room. Lots of anger there.
I haven't gotten jack shit during the last eight years. I don't have kids so I would rather the Democrats get exactly what they want. If there is any chance for keeping those morons out of power it is proving to the American people what they really stand for. BIG FUCKING GOVERNMENT. That is fine for all the welfare moms and people who don't want to work. I however, will keep plugging away and go back to work before my doctors want me to because I have the desire to work. I should drink myself silly because I had to wait at the DMV while 400 illegals sat around smelling of BO and screaming their jibber jabber language. Yeah, my bad. Go Dems.
I'm glad Obama is taking this health care issue head on . . . because it is a serious issue here in the US. We will see if his plan . . . or a compromised version of his plan works . . . but thatnk god for addressing the issue.
I support a public option, but no mandates on anyone. And the public option should only be funded by people opting in and buying insurance. If the govt. can subsidize it for some people without raising taxes or borrowing even more, that's fine with me, too. I don't mind a few other regulations, like making health care portable, or allowing people to buy it from out of state (living in one state, buy it in another). And tort reform - if you sue someone and lose, you pay their court costs and maybe a little penalty for wasting their time. That's an actual compromise both sides should be able to live with, but it looks like there is no compromise to be had so we'll have something worse rammed down our throats and massive spending increases that go along with it.
I think the govt. should sell fire, life, auto, malpractice and just about any other kind of insurance under the sun, too.
Yep. If that's there are only one or two providers available. In Idaho, it seems like if you want health insurance independently, you can basically buy from Blue Cross or go fuck yourself. I'd prefer the choices of Blue Cross, go fuck yourself, or Obama. If fire, auto, malpractice or just about any other kind of insurance gets this bad here, I certainly wouldn't mind a public option.
"Obamacare" doesn't put mandates on anybody. That would NEVER get passed. Allegedly this health care plan would cost $900 billion over the next ten years and President Obama says two-thirds of that is taken care of already because of deals with the pharmaceutical companies. That leaves $30 billion a year. If the Bush tax cuts are revoked, there's the money for health care reform with a public option. Even though taxes were lower under Clinton than they were under Reagan, people are still gonna freak over the Bush tax cuts being taken away. There really is no compromise to be had when one side wants a public option (while half of them are pussies are trying to back out) and the other side is working vehemently against a public option.
My thoughts are that people want the govt. to be a safety net and not a way of life. Insurance is, by definition, a safety net. Why stop at health insurance? If the govt. can provide quality coverage for less, let's see it. If they do, then everyone will want to buy it and it will become what the far left wing of the democratic party wants it to be. Nothing wrong with a little prudence. He may be all over the place, but if he's truly offering this (see quote), then republicans should jump all over it. And they should assure that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it.
Fuzzy math. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending. Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.
That's why I used the word allegedly, my friend. But your article is dated back mid-July. If there were deals cut with pharmaceutical companies to cover most of the incurring costs, this would have been done last week.
