Congratulations to my fellow Democrats

[DC]

Problem is we're paying for a BMW and getting a Yugo with racing stripes.

pimp my Yugo.

i hope you are wrong.

 

[Arg9]

12 years you guys had. 12 years and then 6 years with control of the White House too.

what did you do to reform health-care? nothing.

now, it is our turn, and we are making history. move aside.

so much for bipartisanship. this is bogus. I've watched interview after interview and the democrats are not admitting the big picture to all this. This is not a healthy government!! C'mon, snap out of it people!! This goes beyond the deficit!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

millions of more Americans will buy health insurance, because of this bill.

that means millions more healthier Americans.

only a GOPer would see this as a bad thing.

…or anyone who believes in allowing people to make their own choices about how they will spend their own money.

 

[quixotecoyote]

God knows when I get cancer I'll want the freedom to go bankrupt.

 

[Arg9]

why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's health-care?

i work hard, i don't want my money helping other people. do they help me?

let them die in the street. or go bankrupt. its not my problem.

-GOP

Let's not forget that as responsible human beings that we should be, we're supposed to save money to prepare for tragedies. That means not getting ourselves into credit card debt over complete materialistic crap. That means, screw the big house - expensive car and plan for future hell because it gets us all. Freedom is being responsible and watching out for your own (and family's) butt. Not relying on the government to watch it for you. If everyone excercised caution, they'd be more prepared. And if money is that important to you, in the meantime, come up with a freakin' business idea and make more money. Because in America, you have that possibility. I grew up in a poor family and worked very hard and learned a lot in the process. And the days when it's OK to enjoy a big fat juicy steak and a cigarette after a hard days work will be taken away because some democrat will stick their nose in my health and claim it will cost more in big government health expenses.

Did we need a health reform? yes. Did we need a complete government take over? *$%# no.

 

[Meadmaker]

Did we need a health reform? yes. Did we need a complete government take over? *$%# no.

What we got was a bill that requires people to buy health insurance.

How is that a "complete government takeover"?


And I'll repeat a question from a previous post. Suppose a young, healthy, person makes a free market choice to not purchase health insurance, and is then in an accident that requires extremely expensive medical care to save his life. What does the free market dictate be done at that point?

 

[Fishstick]

What we got was a bill that requires people to buy health insurance.

How is that a "complete government takeover"?


And I'll repeat a question from a previous post. Suppose a young, healthy, person makes a free market choice to not purchase health insurance, and is then in an accident that requires extremely expensive medical care to save his life. What does the free market dictate be done at that point?

Obviously he shouldve worked harder/saved more/been more cautious. BOOTSTRAPS!

 

[Thunder]

Did we need a health reform? yes. Did we need a complete government take over? *$%# no.

what??

the govt. owns all the hospitals now???

all doctors now work for the govt.????

all doctor bills now go to Pennsylvania Avenue???

when did this happen????

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

what??

the govt. owns all the hospitals now???

all doctors now work for the govt.????

all doctor bills now go to Pennsylvania Avenue???

when did this happen????

When is it not going to happen? Who are you trying to kid?

This bill was never intended to be the final stage of the "reform" process. You know that. Single-payer, government owned and operated system was and still is the objective.

The democrats will take the proceed to the next stage as soon as they have the opportunity again.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When is it not going to happen? Who are you trying to kid?

It's not going to happen as a result of the healthcare bill that will be signed into law today. There is absolutely nothing in it that can reasonably construed as the government takeover of healthcare. Hospitals that are privately own, will remain privately owned.

ETA:

This bill was never intended to be the final stage of the "reform" process. You know that. Single-payer, government owned and operated system was and still is the objective.

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

And I will argue with you about the bill's intentions. Taken with the reconciliation package, it is the "final stage" of healthcare reform intended by this Congress. And the next Congress, Democrats will not enjoy the strong majority (if any majority) they now have. It was very nearly a now-or-never thing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's not going to happen as a result of the healthcare bill that will be signed into law today. There is absolutely nothing in it that can reasonably construed as the government takeover of healthcare. Hospitals that are privately own, will remain privately owned.

Are you suggesting that the bill cannot be amended later?

 

[Thunder]

The democrats will take the proceed to the next stage as soon as they have the opportunity again.

on the contrary, no one is gonna wanna touch health-care for another ten years. maybe an adjustment here and there, but more major reforms?

I think not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you suggesting that the bill cannot be amended later?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that we cannot debate the pros and cons of amendments that haven't even been considered yet. And the claim that's been repeatedly made is that this bill is the government takeover of healthcare.

It is not the government takeover of healthcare. No, I can't guarantee that a future law might be passed that would allow for the government takeover of healthcare, but that isn't this bill or the reconciliation package that will be considered after this bill is signed into law.

Heck, it's possible that a future Congress could amend a routine military spending bill to allow for the government takeover of healthcare. But that doesn't mean every time Congress passes a routine military spending bill, it is the government takeover of healthcare.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Makes sense I suppose...
The single payer system would have been impossible to pass in the current political atmosphere, and Obama along with the members in congress that support him knew it full well (heck the current bill barely passed). I'm in the same mind however as SOT that the party will eventually pursue it with the passage of prior bills making it easier for them to do.

ETA: And you will likely label me with the slippery slope as well; I base my position on Obama's original stance on single payer systems and the last few decades wherein the policy has been pursued. This bill does little to satisfy the democratic party's aspirations for UHC, and I hardly think they'd give up on the prospect after finally ramming a first stage through.

 

[Unabogie]

This bill does little to satisfy the democratic party's aspirations for UHC, and I hardly think they'd give up on the prospect after finally ramming a first stage through.

This bill will cover 95% of the population and 32 million people. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "doing little", but that's not my quibble.

The bill passed with a SUPERMAJORITY in the Senate and a MAJORITY in the House. It was not "rammed through" in any sane sense of the word. It was voted on and approved by the standard democratic process.

 

[Thunder]

1 year of debate, countless town hall meetings, a bi-partisan meeting with the President.

rammed through? i think not.

 

[rdaneel]

Right now the signing is being broadcast live here

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: And you will likely label me with the slippery slope as well; I base my position on Obama's original stance on single payer systems and the last few decades wherein the policy has been pursued.

Obama argued against single payer system since the campaign. He said it's what he'd prefer, but that he saw no reason to establish an entirely new system.

This bill does little to satisfy the democratic party's aspirations for UHC, and I hardly think they'd give up on the prospect after finally ramming a first stage through.

I think you're wrong. This bill will get us 95% of the way to UHC, and that's likely as close as we'll ever get (remember, there's the religious exception to the individual mandate).

And as others have noted, characterizing the one year process that led to passage of this bill as a "ramming" it through is absurd. And your notion that this is just the first stage of more radical changes to come is not only absurd but is also still the slippery slope fallacy. (Basically, the slippery slope fallacy is that you're avoiding arguing the merits of what's in front of you and pointing to the dire prospects of something that hasn't happened.)

Given that it took a supermajority (that no longer exists) to get this much through, do you actually think something more radical is going to be done in the remaining time of this Congress or during the next?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This bill will cover 95% of the population and 32 million people. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "doing little", but that's not my quibble.

"Doing little" in the sense of being a policy resembling nothing like what the party actually wants really...

The bill passed with a SUPERMAJORITY in the Senate and a MAJORITY in the House. It was not "rammed through" in any sane sense of the word. It was voted on and approved by the standard democratic process.

From an ultra-partisan my way or the highway approach. They had to use reconciliation, and with 34 democrats voting no, along side the entire Republican Party being against the content of the legislation it got passed with single digit margins, in leeway of unfavorable public opinion.

Congrats on passing the bill but boy I look forward to November...

Obama argued against single payer system since the campaign. He said it's what he'd prefer, but that he saw no reason to establish an entirely new system.


I think you're wrong. This bill will get us 95% of the way to UHC, and that's likely as close as we'll ever get (remember, there's the religious exception to the individual mandate).

And as others have noted, characterizing the one year process that led to passage of this bill as a "ramming" it through is absurd. And your notion that this is just the first stage of more radical changes to come is not only absurd but is also still the slippery slope fallacy. (Basically, the slippery slope fallacy is that you're avoiding arguing the merits of what's in front of you and pointing to the dire prospects of something that hasn't happened.)

The party had enough patience to wait more than 40 years just to get this through, if it's something they feel strongly enough for I have no doubt that they'll pursue to take it further. Whether it happens or not may be another thing but if I supported something like the system that the party would rather have, then this wouldn't be the stopping ground. I don't think it's absurd to understand how strong beliefs in politics work.

Given that it took a supermajority (that no longer exists) to get this much through, do you actually think something more radical is going to be done in the remaining time of this Congress or during the next?

Down the road it's a possibility. Look at Medicare, which despite Republican arguments at the time of its passing is now considered "part of the social fabric." I don't think it guarantees anything more radical can make it, I just think it makes it easier to happen because it lays some of the framework down for later amendments.

 

[WildCat]

The Dutch might well have been forced into it, as the Democrats were.

The Dutch did a few years ago what should have been done here: they completely scrapped their former health care system and built a new one from scratch. Prior to this they had a UK-style single-payer system.

If the Republicans had at any point actively cooperated on developing a practical bill, the end result would have been a lot neater.

I doubt it. They're every bit as clueless as the Dems. The Goldberg contraption would have had even more trap doors and dominos and springs and such.