24 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWouldn't you?!
I'm certain that if Obama ordered the killing of poor people on the streets the extreme right would still oppose his plan.
It's no longer just the extreme right that's beginning to push back on Obama. The fact that the health bill vote has been postponed until after the August recess is telling.
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by FleabittenWouldn't you?!
Wouldn't you?!
It's no longer just the extreme right that's beginning to push back on Obama. The fact that the health bill vote has been postponed until after the August recess is telling.
Yes - I was being cynical.
The fact that the health bill vote has been postponed until after the August recess is telling.
It is telling of Obama's lack of leadership. The need for health care reform is so obvious it amazes me that he cannot even convince the dimmest of Americans of the need for it.
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNearly everyone, even those on the right, recognize the need for reform. What's up for debate is the structure of that reform.
It is telling of Obama's lack of leadership. The need for health care reform is so obvious it amazes me that he cannot even convince the dimmest of Americans of the need for it.
Personally, I think it's more telling of the motivations of congresspeople as opposed to Obama's lack of leadership. If a member of congress thinks a particular vote or stance will damage their re-election chances, they'll do what they can to avoid it, regardless of who's residing in the White House.
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by FleabittenYet another reason to adopt a multi-party system.
Nearly everyone, even those on the right, recognize the need for reform. What's up for debate is the structure of that reform.
Personally, I think it's more telling of the motivations of congresspeople as opposed to Obama's lack of leadership. If a member of congress thinks a particular vote or stance will damage their re-election chances, they'll do what they can to avoid it, regardless of who's residing in the White House.
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyI gave that up a long time ago. If the system was operating as it should, that is the absolute best thing to do. Yes they will fall on their swords as it is clear to them now they are not representing their constituency. Something is going on now that seems odd. It is like they don't have to worry about voters anymore. Just make promises and later not keep them and chaulk it up to campaign rhetoric. Since the left and right work for the same international entities, both sides will essentially try to bring in full blown socialism. So what do you do? Try to get the word out like you have been and folks will wake up. Maybe not immediately but after enough events the stuff will make sense to them.
Who cares what their motivation is for voting for these bills. What matters is that we oppose them and need to send the message that we oppose them. Have you notified your representatives that you oppose them? Then they can weigh the possible reprocussions of not representing the wishes of the populace at large. The real question is, would they fall on their swords just to get this stuff passed?
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by FleabittenOne of the major concerns is that the budget is already leaking a ton of red ink, and any kind of significant healthcare reform is going to add another layer of spending. Even without healthcare reform, we're going to need to make some major spending cuts AND tax increases to get the deficits down to a reasonable level.
Nearly everyone, even those on the right, recognize the need for reform. What's up for debate is the structure of that reform.
Personally, I think it's more telling of the motivations of congresspeople as opposed to Obama's lack of leadership. If a member of congress thinks a particular vote or stance will damage their re-election chances, they'll do what they can to avoid it, regardless of who's residing in the White House.
Then there's the issue of skyrocketing healthcare costs -- and any program that achieves universal coverage is going to push those costs higher by enabling more people to gain access to care they currently can't get. Those healthcare costs are putting tremendous pressure on current government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
And lots of people are afraid that any new plan might leave them worse off individually - being forced to pay more or get less coverage - Most of the plans are difficult to understand, and some of those TV ads can be really scary.
Meanwhile, everything is being rushed through in hopes of getting everything done before campaign season begins early next year - and I suspect Obama himself is having a lot of trouble keeping up with everything (I suspect many a rocket scientist would have trouble keeping up).
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorralaw of supply and demand -- either other countries offer a greater supply of healthcare products & services, or those countries are limiting demand more than the US does. This is one of the reasons why many people fear universal coverage -- they fear that while everyone might have access to care, most people will have less care available to them than they do under the current system.
Then why is [b]every universal health care scheme that currently exists in the world cheaper?[/b]
One way of reducing costs is the elimination of unnecessary tests and procedures. This is undoubtedly a major problem in the US. But who determines whether a given procedure is "unnecessary"? Do we trust the government bureaucrat we don't know or the insurance bureaucrat we do know? People tend to cling to the familiar, even if change would likely benefit them.
Another way to reduce costs is to replace private insurance with government. Private insurers charge extra to cover costs for stuff like advertising, and they want to make a profit from their business. But eliminating private insurers eliminates competition, giving everyone only the government option. This is why many people oppose even having the government offer it's own plan -- if it forces all the private insurers out of business, it's the same as if the government had overtly banned private insurance.
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel58If we can somehow make healthcare cheaper without reducing quality, think of all the tax dollars we would save on programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's care without having to actually cut anyone's benefits.
Maybe cheaper in theory but they're just going to charge the tax-payer's.
