Obama and Dems to go it alone on health-care reform, if GOP refuses to compromise

[Bob Blaylock]

Let me say this:

I like this plan MORE than I like doing nothing.

does anyone like doing nothing MORE than they like this plan?

Let me put it this way.

Suppose I am proposing to hit you in the head with a hammer. Do you like this plan? What if the other option is for me to do nothing?

Perhaps I'd better hit you in the head with my hammer, because doing anything is better than doing nothing, right?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In this case, nobody is offering anything that will make things better.

Sure there are. Those fighting for a public option are.

No, that would make things much, much worse.

The GOP, however, isn't offering ANY alternatives other than "no."

See my previous posting to Parky. When the only action being proposed is one that will only cause harm, the best choice is to oppose it. Would you like me to hit you in the head with my hammer, or would you rather have me do nothing? Doing nothing is bad, isn't it? Wouldn't it be better if I did something, even if that something was to cause you harm?

 

[gnome]

I'm pretty sure those suggesting the current plan is better than nothing are not arguing that ANYTHING would be better than nothing. The idea is that despite its flaws it is in fact better than nothing. Feel free to debate that, but there's no logical inconsistency here.

 

[The Painter]

well, I guess Palin can count on your vote in the primaries of 2012...huh Painter?

If you just paid attention you would know that I consider her nothing more than a sideshow.

Back to health care, this does show that Obama is really very good at beating a dead horse. I thought he was going to "laser focus on jobs and the economy"? This isn't that.

 

[Random]

I don't understand how republicans stopped the bill to begin with. Democrats had a 60 seat majority. Seems like Obama failures just get blamed on republicans.

For the bazillionith time, Dems never had a 60 seat majority. When Joe Lieberman is your 60th senator, you have 59 senators. That's leaving out the conservadems...

 

[Kodiak]

Random,

Since your erudite post got lost amidst the petty partisan bickering, I thought I should let you know at least one member (me) read it and found it well-written and insightful (and nominated).

-marksman

"Great minds" and all that. I nominated Random's post as well...

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, that would make things much, much worse.

I doubt it. Have any evidence to show that it would?

See my previous posting to Parky.

You seem to be missing the point. Health care in the USA needs reform, it's on the way to catastrophic failure right now. The GOP is not proposing any ways to actually stop this failure. They don't care if the current bill will help or hurt the nation. Their only interest is to see Obama fail.

 

[Kodiak]

They don't care if the current bill will help or hurt the nation. Their only interest is to see Obama fail.

You could say the same thing about the Dems -

"The Dems don't care if the current bill will help or hurt the nation. Their only interest is to see Obama succeed."

 

[thaiboxerken]

You could say the same thing about the Dems -

"The Dems don't care if the current bill will help or hurt the nation. Their only interest is to see Obama succeed."

Yes, they want to see Obama succeed in making health care more affordable and accessible to every person in the USA.

 

[Kodiak]

Yes, they want to see Obama succeed in making health care more affordable and accessible to every person in the USA.

"Yes, they want to see Obama succeed in making health care a huge government-controlled entitlement that will exert an increased financial burden on every person in the USA."

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Yes, they want to see Obama succeed in making health care a huge government-controlled entitlement that will exert an increased financial burden on every person in the USA."

Right. Feel free to explain that it will increase the financial burden on every person in the USA. More likely, it will decrease the costs of health insurance in the USA for most citizens.

However, let's say it does increase the financial burden by a small percentage. I'm ok with that, as long as everyone has access to health care.

 

[AlBell]

Right. Feel free to explain that it will increase the financial burden on every person in the USA. More likely, it will decrease the costs of health insurance in the USA for most citizens.

However, let's say it does increase the financial burden by a small percentage. I'm ok with that, as long as everyone has access to health care.

The majority of the population who have health insurance have-faith-in-the-Dems-plan that they will be paying most of the added costs to cover more people, will see declining benefits even as they pay more, and will watch the cost of health care soar as demand increases.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Health care in the USA needs reform, it's on the way to catastrophic failure right now. The GOP is not proposing any ways to actually stop this failure.

Neither are the Democrats. They are only proposing to do things that will be even more catastrophic.

They don't care if the current bill will help or hurt the nation.

Neither do the Democrats. At this point, regardless of whatever one might have originally thought might help the situation, it has to be obvious to all, on either side of the aisle, that what they've put together is a destructive bill that does nothing whatsoever to address the root causes of the problem, and which will only prove costly, destructive to freedom, and harmful to the American people. They know this, and they don't care. They are determined to pass it anyway, so that they can take credit for having done something.

 

[boooeee]

While health insurance companies are greedy, unscrupulous, profit-skimming jerks who add a totally unnecessary layer of cost to healthcare, they are not the biggest problem with healthcare in the US. The big problem is the total disconnect between the people who sell medical care (doctors, hospitals, drug companies), the people who buy medical care (patients), and the people who pay for medical care (Medicare, health insurance companies, etc.) {snip}

Good post. But isn't the bolded portion above a feature of most healthcare systems around the world? In England, you aren't charged a thing for most services (you pay your monthly "store" fee through taxes). In the Netherlands, your "store" fee is your insurance premium. And so on.

Focusing on the disconnect between who receives medical care and who pays for it seems odd, since that disconnect is practically the goal of universal healthcare.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The majority of the population who have health insurance have-faith-in-the-Dems-plan that they will be paying most of the added costs to cover more people, will see declining benefits even as they pay more, and will watch the cost of health care soar as demand increases.

I think it's more likely that costs will go down with the reform plan that's being proposed, even without the public option.

They are only proposing to do things that will be even more catastrophic.

This is not a factually supported statement.

Neither do the Democrats.

BS. The Democrats are actually trying to improve the nation. You might believe that what they're proposing will hurt the nation, but their motivations are sound.

 

[Rolfe]

Good post. But isn't the bolded portion above a feature of most healthcare systems around the world? In England, you aren't charged a thing for most services (you pay your monthly "store" fee through taxes). In the Netherlands, your "store" fee is your insurance premium. And so on.

Focusing on the disconnect between who receives medical care and who pays for it seems odd, since that disconnect is practically the goal of universal healthcare.

Indeed. While parts of the post were illuminating, some of it was very reminiscent of that nonsense Stossel was promulgating a while ago - that people will grab far more food than they need, and only the mosy luxurious items, if they aren't forced to pay item by item.

The common feature of most universal healthcare systems seems to be that the patient's doctors decide what treatment the patient actually NEEDS. You can buy extras if you want, but what you can take out of the universal system isn't your choice, dictated by how much you think you can milk the system for, but a factor of what care your medical condition dictates that you need.

Rolfe.

 

[Random]

Good post. But isn't the bolded portion above a feature of most healthcare systems around the world? In England, you aren't charged a thing for most services (you pay your monthly "store" fee through taxes). In the Netherlands, your "store" fee is your insurance premium. And so on.

Focusing on the disconnect between who receives medical care and who pays for it seems odd, since that disconnect is practically the goal of universal healthcare.

Not exactly. Not sure about the Netherlands, but in England the NHS would own both the grocery store and the GPC. They people selling medical services and the people paying are one and the same. There is strong motivation to keep unnecessary procedures and tests to a minimum.

In the US, hospitals and doctors want to sell as much services as possible, patients want to receive the best services as possible, and insurance companies really don’t care how much any of this costs as long as patients are still buying insurance and they can take their cut. Indeed, the health insurance companies have a perverse incentive to keep things expensive. A 4% cut of a one trillion dollar a year industry is smaller than a 4% cut of a two trillion dollar a year industry.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why don't they make a national program that states can either choose to join or not?



Did I just solve the whole problem?

 

[Random]

Indeed. While parts of the post were illuminating, some of it was very reminiscent of that nonsense Stossel was promulgating a while ago - that people will grab far more food than they need, and only the mosy luxurious items, if they aren't forced to pay item by item.

The common feature of most universal healthcare systems seems to be that the patient's doctors decide what treatment the patient actually NEEDS. You can buy extras if you want, but what you can take out of the universal system isn't your choice, dictated by how much you think you can milk the system for, but a factor of what care your medical condition dictates that you need.

Rolfe.

But they do. Studies have shown that almost a third of all medical procedures in the US are medically unnecessary. Big Pharma spends million in advertising each year to get you to buy specific drugs, which would hardly seem necessary if people were only taking what they need, etc, etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why don't they make a national program that states can either choose to join or not?

States have the option of opting out is part of the plan. You didn't solve the problem, the Democrats already did.