Posts
Ok, now THAT's what I voted for! The conclusion to that speech was definitely what I was looking for. (Well, I would have preferred single payer, but this is way better than the status quo.)
Now, live up to it. Don't back down on the public option because reform is meaningless without it. Don't get so caught up in the hope of bipartisanship and compromise that you don't get it done. Don't let delay and scare tactics and obstructionism win. Don't let a vocal minority drown out the majority who are demanding real reform. And continue to defend liberalism and empathy as really good things.
We have failed on health care for far too long.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Designed by : NW Designs
About Me
- S
- Part Public Defender, part sports fanatic Email me at pttchoir@gmail.com
Search This Blog
Popular Posts
-
I shouldn't watch Dateline and 48 Hours. The cases featured on those shows all too often feature way too little actual evidence and way ...
-
I haven't blogged much (or ever?) about the Amanda Knox case. But not because I haven't followed it or formed opinions about it. I h...
-
I'm not a big NBA fan. Somehow the NBA manages to take a fun game I love, full of speed, quickness, and explosive plays, and turn it int...
-
Ok, I've never said much about the Casey Anthony case, except that I was a little sick of it. A lot sick of it, actually. So I'm ple...
-
Many factors contribute to our police brutality problem. Systemic racism, widespread gun ownership, fear. But one factor that doesn't ge...
-
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that I think ought to be a no-brainer. The issue is this: in a criminal prosecutio...
-
Coming soon...
-
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Nancy Grace. You all know by now that I don't just think she's a shrill, insensitive je...
-
My first conscious sports memory was George Brett hitting a homer off Goose Gossage in the 1980 ALCS. For 4 of the previous 5 years, the ALC...
-
Coming soon...
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(317)
-
▼
September
(17)
- Denial thrives in Texas
- John Couey may be dead, but is his appeal?
- Why not just buy an island and be done with it?
- Good news for drinkers
- Trial things that have been annoying me lately
- Plaxico goes to prison
- Wait for it
- Fighting crime through health care?
- The police want to suck your blood
- Badly done, Serena
- So, Michele Bachmann, are you really going to slit...
- Ok, now THAT's what I voted for! The conclusion t...
- You can't win unless you get in the game
- Exhibit A
- The truth about capitalism
- So why'd you pick my guy, exactly?
- Public Service Announcement
-
▼
September
(17)
11 comments:
What if it's the majority that does not want it? What then? Should he still move forward with it?
And how do you propose to pay for it? And will you still root for it even if Congress opts out of it?
First, the polling I've seen has consistently shown that the large majority does want reform and that a majority believes a public option is essential to reform. But, yeah, I still think it is necessary whether the majority "wants" it or not. This isn't a democracy; we don't do things by majority rule. And sometimes, the people don't act in their own best interests.
As for paying for it, let me ask you this: how do you propose to pay for NOT fixing health care? We are on an unsustainable path and the cost to continue as we are going will bankrupt us all.
And, yes, I will root for (and support candidates who will work for) single payer as long as I'm around.
So Congressman can have the best coverage, but United States citizens can have the cheap stuff? Are they not servants of the citizens?
I propose allowing competition do it's job. I propose tort reform and changing medical malpractice laws so that OB/GYN's don't have to carry more insurance than they can possibly afford.
But you didn't answer my question. How do you propose to pay for it? I see this as a welfare program we can not afford.
This is all just smoke and mirrors. If it were reall about reigning in costs they would reform Medicare and Medicaid. This is about adding services, and getting us all on single payer.
Which I don't want. Which I think lowers everyones care.
And the bill as it stands now is a tragedy. It's every Dem Lobbyist who for the past 20 years has been waiting and paying getting their "due." It's revolting.
Change the laws. Change the rules on pre-existing conditions and medical bankruptcy. But dumping the whole system in favor of a government option is ridiculous. They haven't run a successful social program yet.
And if this "crisis" is bad, wait till Social Security goes bankrupt.
Reform doesn't necessarily mean single payer system or even a public option.
It could and should mean that people want to have choices, not be required to have insurance or pay a fine.
And sometimes, the people don't act in their own best interests.
So, who knows what MY best interest is?
Who gets to decide that I'm not acting in my best interest and force me to do it? You? Obama? Congress?
What happened to libery, freedoms? Personal responsibility?
We are on an unsustainable path and the cost to continue as we are going will bankrupt us all.
Government regulations cripple the health insurance business competitiveness, then use that as a reason to implement more restrictions.
How about allowing insurance companies to do business across state lines?
How about giving people, organizations, groups the same tax breaks that businesses get to provide health insurance instead.
Do you know why businesses started offering health insurance?
And, yes, I will root for (and support candidates who will work for) single payer as long as I'm around.
It isn't compromise compromise when people want less government regulation/interference while the other side wants a single payer system and the result is a public option. Did the side wanting less regulation get anything? NOPE.
Massachusetts has tried universal health care and it is failing. What makes you or anyone else think it will work on a national level?
Believe me, Bob, I agree that the mandatory insurance and fines are a bad idea. So does Obama, so I don't understand why he's willing to endorse it now.
As it stands right now, an awful lot of people DON'T have any choice. People are stuck in jobs that they can't leave because of pre-existing conditions. People are stuck taking only poverty-level jobs so that their income won't disqualify their children for state coverage because no private insurance will take them. People are stuck choosing between insuring themselves or paying the water bill. These are all real stories I know of people who could consider themselves middle class, who work hard and deserve better.
I think you're both delusional to think that "competition" is the key. Read the Walmart example. That's what competition does. We, the consumers, do not have any power as long as our health care options are offered by for-profit insurance companies. And don't even get me started on what a red herring "tort reform" is. I'm sure there are procedural things that can be done to improve the way malpractice claims are litigated, but damage caps are not the answer. And if you want to know why malpractice insurance premiums are so out of reach, ask the insurance companies who set the premiums. Why does no one think to place any blame on the companies who charge the exorbitant premiums?
Personal responsibility is all well and good, Bob, but seriously, this issue is way, way beyond just demanding that people "grow up" and take care of themselves. 1 in 100 people will have a family member declare bankruptcy due to medical bills this year. These aren't "irresponsible" people who don't work and don't have insurance. These are people who have insurance. This doesn't happen in any other western nation. Our system is so insanely out of control that even solid, responsible people can't afford it. We need to fix it and the fix needs to be radical. What we are doing does not work. For anyone.
The bottom line is that I think health care is a right and you think it's a privilege. Frankly, I'm just fine with your side not getting anything your way on this issue.
S.
Then change the laws to give the tax breaks to the people instead of the businesses.
Let churches, Groups like Scouting, Lions, PTAs, etc offer group insurance.
Let professional associations offer group insurance...how many associations do you belong to? Me at least 3.
Change the tax laws to let the benefits accrue to the individual.
Government regulations during WWII froze wages so companies started offering insurance as a way to increase salary/wages. The tax breaks came from the government to encourage more insurance....change the law AGAIN.
Medical costs are outrageous because of the insurance companies to a large degree.
When your contracted rates are set as a percentage of "reasonable and customary rates" the medical folks start jacking up the rates to make up for what insurance won't pay. Go to any medical facility and offer to pay cash, see what you are charged, you'll be surprised.
People stay in low in jobs because of pre-existing conditions...again - change the law. Require insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions. But don't tell them they can't charge more either. Especially if it is a preventable condition.
There are many, many ways of "reforming" health care without going the route of H.R. 3200. That monstrosity creates 53 new government agencies or organizations.
Also, how are we going to pay for that GBO stated that there is no way to pay for it using premiums only.
As far as the majority vote goes, what if the majority of the people voted not to cover folks in gay marriages, would that be "fair"?
Frankly, I'm just fine with your side not getting anything your way on this issue.
If that is the way it works out, that is what happens. Just don't try to tell me you've compromised.
It is a false "compromise" if you get 30% of what you want and I get none.
If this is such an important "must be done right now, OR ELSE" issue, why does nothing go into effect until 2013?
Because it's all political.
It is not about helping people. If it were they would change the rules for Medicaid that would allow people like my in-laws kids to qualify for coverage.
This has NOTHING to do with quality of care and all about getting us on single payer. And I do not think single payer is the answer. Do I want help for those that need it? Yes. Change the laws. Don't overhaul the entire system and say it's for my own good. It's not.
And for every sob story you have on people that are suffering I can find a sob story about the ills of single payer systems.
And you did not answer the question. How do you propose we pay for it?
And another new question ... will you be on this plan? And how will you feel when you are? As a government employee you know the red tape you have to go through just to get more paper for the copy machine, just imagine that in regards to health care.
And Wal-Mart is successful because people shop there. A lot. If you're rich enough that you don'th ave to shop there, good for you. But for many that's the best option they've got because mom and pop may mean well but they are more expensive. Probably the same people who will be most effective by single payer shop at wal-mart. I find that ironic based on your comments.
Nobody forces the employees to work for Wal-mart. If they don't like the benefits, there are many options.
They can quit, they can unionize, they can pressure management to improve them.
First, I never said I wanted to compromise. I said the opposite, in fact.
Second, "Nobody forces the employees to work for Wal-mart. If they don't like the benefits, there are many options.
They can quit, they can unionize, they can pressure management to improve them." This is the single most ridiculous, naive thing I have ever read.
Third, Stacy, I don't know how to pay for it. Do you know how to pay for our nation going bankrupt because we don't completely overhaul our system that DOES NOT WORK??? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge that we need to radically overhaul our system because it does not work?
What specific plan are you asking me about being on? As it stands now, I don't have much of a choice, anyway. Don't we all pretty much take what we can get? I don't have to go through any red tape at my state office to order paper. I already have insurance provided through the state.
I absolutely think we should change the laws regarding insurance to prevent them from dropping people or from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Because the market can't affect that change, we clearly need laws to do it. That's why I'm skeptical of the free market when it comes to things like health care, where the consumer does not have any real power. Our power comes through forcing change through laws.
I never said HR 3320 is right on everything.
My main, overarching concern is profit. I think the radical change we need in health care is to remove profit from the equation. I think we're really in more agreement than you think we are. Maybe I just think the current system is far, far more critical than you do.
Bob, I'm sorry, but I don't really understand this question: "As far as the majority vote goes, what if the majority of the people voted not to cover folks in gay marriages, would that be "fair"?"
Of course that wouldn't be fair and I don't think it would be legal. But I'm not sure why you posed it to me as I have consistently argued that we are not a society of majority rule precisely so that kind of majority rule proposition does not survive.
S.
Why? Are the people locked into working at Walmart? No, they have free will and there are other jobs out there.
Lack of Education? Adult education classes available at most every high school and community college. Of course, if they had worked on their education as kids that wouldn't be a problem.
You say it is ridiculous but you don't say why...you just pooh-bah it as if the people are drones.
Wrong, they are thinking human beings who can make choices.
What about choices? H.R. 3200 requires every person to have insurance or face a fine. Why? Not everyone needs insurance every moment of their lives. Most young people can get buy with paying cash for their medical care.
You GOT to be KIDDING me!!
My main, overarching concern is profit. I think the radical change we need in health care is to remove profit from the equation.
Without profit, what reason is there to innovate? What reason is there to create new machines if people can't improve their quality of life by inventing. What reason would pharmaceutical companies have to spend millions to try to bring new drugs to the market.
What you want is communism, show me a successful communistic state and we might talk about it but it isn't happening any where in the world that I see.
If you want to remove the profit from the equation, why haven't you set up your own charity clinic/ medical care facility?
You have more money than many people, are you donating what is excess of the poverty level to charity to provide care?
Shouldn't you and the others who want to provide health insurance to everyone be doing something on your own before you use the government's guns to take money from others?
Post a Comment