• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Senate Health bill

If true, that's pretty shrewd (and jaded, cynical, etc) of them to place that in there as a concession-getter when they know the Supreme Court would just knock it down anyway.
 
Well. . I still look at the public option as a huge compromise away from a single payer system, but apparently that view isn't universal among Senate "Democrats".
 
psychictv said:
If true, the Democratic party is truly screwed.
Click to expand...

From the talk, I think they put in privately-owned but government monitored non-profit insurance companies and/or expansion of eligibility for Medicare.

CNN said:
The compromise ideas include a not-for-profit private insurance option overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, much like the current health plan for federal workers; allowing people 55 and older to buy into Medicare coverage that currently is available to those 65 and older; expanding the Medicaid program for low-income people "without too much extra cost" and additional insurance reform measures, Schumer said.
Click to expand...
 
Good riddance, I hope the whole thing collapses.
 
While this process has been disgraceful, it hasn't been nearly so disgraceful as not talking about it at all for all those years. If anything is disgraceful, it's people with the power to do something about a problem who refuse to do it because it isn't convenient to them.
 
Cynic said:
While this process has been disgraceful, it hasn't been nearly so disgraceful as not talking about it at all for all those years. If anything is disgraceful, it's people with the power to do something about a problem who refuse to do it because it isn't convenient to them.
Click to expand...

QFT


Actually, I don't think the process is any more "disgraceful" than the way the Republican-controlled Congress came up with the Energy Bill or Medicare Reform (2003). If anything, the health insurance reform debate has been more transparent. At worst, it's been no worse than the usual procedures.

Pretty much every complaint opponents have had about the process could be made about the process of any other large piece of legislation (like the 2 I just mentioned).

The fact is, the way compromise happens is by making deals that neither side on any given issue would really want to make if they didn't think it was necessary.
 
Cynic said:
While this process has been disgraceful, it hasn't been nearly so disgraceful as not talking about it at all for all those years. If anything is disgraceful, it's people with the power to do something about a problem who refuse to do it because it isn't convenient to them.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, who is refusing to do it for this reason, and why is it not convenient to them?
 
Cynic said:
While this process has been disgraceful, it hasn't been nearly so disgraceful as not talking about it at all for all those years. If anything is disgraceful, it's people with the power to do something about a problem who refuse to do it because it isn't convenient to them.
Click to expand...
You're talking about the same US Congress I am, aren't you? :confused:
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
QFT


Actually, I don't think the process is any more "disgraceful" than the way the Republican-controlled Congress came up with the Energy Bill or Medicare Reform (2003). If anything, the health insurance reform debate has been more transparent. At worst, it's been no worse than the usual procedures.

Pretty much every complaint opponents have had about the process could be made about the process of any other large piece of legislation (like the 2 I just mentioned).
Click to expand...
You really want to use the 2003 Congress as the benchmark to which you aspire?

The fact is, the way compromise happens is by making deals that neither side on any given issue would really want to make if they didn't think it was necessary.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when a group of whores runs the country. Actually, it's far worse than that. My apologies to whores.
 
GStan said:
Just for clarification, who is refusing to do it for this reason, and why is it not convenient to them?
Click to expand...

In general, the entire body, and because it's a divisive issue that represents the risk of not being re-elected. In the world of no news is good news, sitting on your hands is much safer than sticking your neck out.

This round, I'd say in particular the conservative side of the aisles, because the effect mentioned above is particularly focused on them. You don't see that kind of uniformity of "opinion" without fear as a primary motivator. Conservatives are a-scared of doing anything that might cause their contiuents to read them as commies and socialists. It's virtually impossible to tell what the individuals actually think about the issue.
 
Cynic said:
In general, the entire body, and because it's a divisive issue that represents the risk of not being re-elected. In the world of no news is good news, sitting on your hands is much safer than sticking your neck out.
Click to expand...

My bolding. That's why I asked, and also is the reason that, while I do have a substantial distaste for congress and politicians in general, I don't really find it "disgraceful" that representatives' votes would reflect the will of their constituents.

This round, I'd say in particular the conservative side of the aisles, because the effect mentioned above is particularly focused on them. You don't see that kind of uniformity of "opinion" without fear as a primary motivator. Conservatives are a-scared of doing anything that might cause their contiuents to read them as commies and socialists. It's virtually impossible to tell what the individuals actually think about the issue.
Click to expand...

Well, I respectfully disagree that conservatives, the guys without power right now, are to blame for this issue. And, as politically charged as the issue has become, I think its sometimes difficult to tell the difference between someone whose "a-scared" and someone who has a reasoned/principled objection. But in the end, imo, I don't think it matters one way or the other, as the overriding and uniting factor among all politicians is their desire to win their next election.
 
GStan said:
My bolding. That's why I asked, and also is the reason that, while I do have a substantial distaste for congress and politicians in general, I don't really find it "disgraceful" that representatives' votes would reflect the will of their constituents.



Well, I respectfully disagree that conservatives, the guys without power right now, are to blame for this issue. And, as politically charged as the issue has become, I think its sometimes difficult to tell the difference between someone whose "a-scared" and someone who has a reasoned/principled objection. But in the end, imo, I don't think it matters one way or the other, as the overriding and uniting factor among all politicians is their desire to win their next election.
Click to expand...

Even more diffilcult to tell between a politician with a reasoned and principled objection and someone just trying to stay inline with their party is telling the difference beween politicians trying to do what their constituents want to get re-elected, and constituents whose wants are predicated by staying in line with their party to it will remain in power. The snake as been munching on its tail, IMO.

If you think about it, the political landscape is completely absurd. You can't get any two people to agree on anything, and yet we're to believe that the entire nation can be evenly split between two distinct laundry lists of issue positions? The conservatives voting in lockstep to obstruct any progress on these issues can't be any more true to the will of their constiuents than than can be their constiuents thinking in lockstep to the tune of their party. For their party, the best one can say about the similar lockstep the liberals are operating under is as an attempt to counteract the other group. Somewhere along the line (and surely not recently) politics ceased to have anything at all to do with the supposed will of the people and became all about strategies and tactics to gain and retain power. But if not driven by the people, to what end?

No doubt a lot of this comes out in the wash. It's not a conspiracy -- more of an emergent property of an intractable circumstance of having a relatively vital representative democracy. But those policians know better than this.
 
Fact is, the US public is divided on what form Health Care can take. It seems to be an attitude of they want some kind of UHC but are badly divided on the details. And both pro and anti Government ran Health Care adovcates can come up with polls that claim a "majority" of the public support their views.
A single payer system was never in the cards,folks.
But I agree that backbone of any kind seems to be lacking in the Congress. And I note that does not change no matter which party is in control.
 
WildCat said:
You really want to use the 2003 Congress as the benchmark to which you aspire?
Click to expand...
I think you misread my post. I'm pointing out that the many of the critics of the process being used currently were supporters of these large bills passed with the same or worse procedures in the past. If you want to disagree with the bill on its merits, that's one thing, but I have no sympathy for people who object to the process.


This is what happens when a group of whores runs the country. Actually, it's far worse than that. My apologies to whores.
Click to expand...
Not that I'm any fan of the status quo, but do you have anything constructive to suggest as far as getting past the fundamental disagreements here? (And I'm not even talking about partisan disagreements, because this is largely just betwen the liberal vs. "moderate" Democrats.)

I'd love for the opinion of the Catholic Church not to matter in the process, but apparently it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom