As both a Democrat and an ardent Obama backer, I am disgusted. The bill sucks, and the president wimped out.
Here's what bothers me the most- there are real solutions to provide some good measure of healthcare to all at a far far cheaper price. But rather than going for a doable solution we had to have this 3-ring circus. It started as socialism at it's worst and ended up as such a stinking mish-mash that who could ever possibly want it. I applaud the democrats for at least thinking about a solution for those uninsured. I applaud the republicans for being the vanguard of the common citizen in this mess. Now,an we all get back to a more common sense approach? Honestly, politicians.
Re: It's all gone wrong for health care Hey, I'm with you on this. Obama should have never taken this on. I don't think there is a solution to this mess . . . or a solution that can be resolved by politicians. We need to cut the political bullshit, stop piece mealing this solution to appease one side or the other, and come up with the best plan that will give this country a better health care system and allow this country to continue to prosper.
Just curious, how is it the president wimped out? I'm pretty he can't force anything to happen, just veto things.
The solution is simple. President Obama needs to tell Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to pack it in and start over. This time, include the Republicans and make it a truly bi-partisan bill done openly as he promised. Address tort reform. Delink employment and insurance by allowing people to write off private insurance. Embrace health savings accounts. Figure out how to insure those who want insurance but can't afford it. The only reason to sign this bill right now is to give President Obama something to talk about at the State of the Union. No offense, Mr. President, but it's not about you.
No offense, but that doesn't sound like compromise. That sounds like everything the republicans want and very little what the democrats want. I "bolded" what I consider republican things, and underlined what I consider universal things.
I included some reasonable ideas that have been ignored because they come from the right. I didn't include the Democratic goals because it seems like the Democrats can get what they want because they're in the majority in both houses in Congress and occupy the presidency. The bitch about getting something done on a bipartisan basis means you have to compromise. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they can't keep their own house in order, much less get anyone right of center to vote for this bill. If they could, we'd have the healthcare bill they desire.
so just to clarify, they should do what the republicans want, (which I believe most of those aforementioned things were suppose to be addressed perhaps not though) and they should just force their own agenda too (which they are trying and can't). So what seems like to me will happen is, they try to do what the republicans want, and then the republicans say "NAH UH! we don't want that other stuff!"
No. They negotiate a truly bi-partisan bill. The right gets some things they want, the left gets some things they want. Who gives a shit who wins between Republicans and Democrats? I care that the American people win. And in this bill, the American people lose.
Yeah, I understand what you're getting at, I just feel like (in my bias) the Republicans just don't want anything to happen and the democrats to fail. You know Lieberman said about a month or two ago he wanted to expand medicare to 55 year olds? And then when he can, what does he do, shoot it down. That is just one example I know, but it is AN example of saying no to say no.
- Address tort reform. - Delink employment and insurance by allowing people to write off private insurance. - Embrace health savings accounts. I would prefer the single payer system but I would be satisfied with the three things you mention + extending Medicare to 55 and older. It's obvious that the insurance companies and lawyers got their say because tort reform, extending medicare and the single payer system all were left out of the bill. Tort reform is big one too because that may have the biggest impact on actual costs of health care. Huge disappointment for me...
Need I remind you Leiberman isn't a Republican? If you want someone to be more than an obstruction to your policy goals, it's been my experience that you can help accomplish that goal by including them in the process. Can you deny the Republicans have been almost completely shut out? There was the Baucus-led group of 12, but that wasn't even an official committee. This strategy of going it alone is one devised by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Now they're complaining that the people they are excluding won't vote along with them? It seems as if it's a problem of their own making.
As someone who is absolutely not a capitalist, rather veering towards socialism, I think that all arguments surrounding competition are almost invalid, particularly when talking about healthcare. We're not talking about consumer goods here, we're talking about healthcare, and life or death for people. It is a problem that businesses providing healthcare should be trying to provide the best returns for their shareholders rather than providing the best healthcare possible for the nation. Why should one, purely because they can afford it, be entitled to a much better standard of healthcare than one who is less well off?
The assumption you're making is that everyone under a single-payer system would receive the very best health care possible, when these socialized medicine systems have proven that the amount and quality of care would decline. If we socialized our system, it would be even worse, as most of the world's medical innovation occurs here. And it sounds cruel, but if you are only compensating your physicians $75-$100K, the number and quality of physicians will decline. There is always a tradeoff between security and freedom. When the government can tell you what health care you can receive, they have the power of life and death over you. I'm willing to trade off having to sell everything I own to get whatever health care I can afford rather than to have my life controlled by someone else. What freedoms are you willing to give to never have any worries? I went through childhood, where my every need was taken care of, but I was controlled by my parents. I'm an adult now; I make my own choices. I prefer being an adult to being a child.
I agree that this is one of the main things in this argument. A difference of opinion between the right, who doesn't think health care is a right, and the left who does. I think there are certain things that should either be non-profit, or only slightly profitable. i think health care is one of them.
Right, there are two children, one born into wealth and one born into poverty. Why should the wealthy one be able to have better healthcare than the poor one? What has the poor child done to deserve worse healthcare? Further, say one operating theatre can be used for all sorts of surgery, ranging from cosmetic to life-saving. Why should a slot be able to be purchased so that miss moneybags can get a slightly reshaped nose or something to that effect, thus preventing a poorer person from undergoing lifesaving surgery? There are some things that shouldn't be determined by who has the most money. I go on the school of thought that a lot of doctors don't become doctors on the basis that they want to earn as much money as possible. For example, then there would be hardly any doctors in the UK, as prospective doctors could choose another degree and then end up a highly paid banker. I believe that people are capable of acting upon other factors than money. Some people are willing to serve humanity for "lower than market price", and many doctors fall into this category. I don't see why competition should encourage medical innovation. There are enough very clever scientists that would strive to provide the best they can for humanity even if there wasn't a race for who could produce the vaccine fastest. In fact, if the companies pooled resources rather than worked against each other, there is an argument that innovation could take place faster, as people working together are more efficient than people working against each other. On the topic of the government being in control of my life and death; to an extent I'm okay with that. It's a very, very tricky situation, don't get me wrong, and I haven't been in a situation like that in my life. However, it's not exactly in the government's hand; individual doctors who are trained in that field make the call. I'm sure I would rather die than have my life prolonged by a month or two or extreme pain at a massive cost to the government. From stories over here in the UK, there are very rarely problems surrounding "pulling the plug" and often they are essentially parents wanting to prolong an essentially brain-dead baby's life at extreme cost to the taxpayer. The baby would have no quality of life whatsoever, and it is just prolonging the inevitable by a matter of weeks or months. This is a really awkward situation, but I often think that an objective jury, for example, could make a better decision than the family of the person who is almost dead. On the subject of freedom, I'm OK with having that limited by the government's role, at least to some extent. We vote for the government, and in general they act in the way we want them to. It is in their interest to act in the way we want them to, so that they can stay in power; so in theory a balance should be met.
