Also, the political climate we have today is the best we can hope for - the Democrats are in powernow. If they lack the courage of their convictions, then I doubt it will take long before the Republicans are in control. Moreover, if the Democratic Party is so unwilling to use the power it has, then what good are they?
Well said.
I don't believe the Democrats have a sufficient majority to just pass whatever they want, though. The Republicans are unilaterally opposed to the public option, IIRC, and that enables them to completely block any bill from passing.
EDIT: Yup, it's 60% Democrat in both the House and Senate. That's a nice majority, but unless they can get some Republicans on their side, there's no way to pass any health care reform bill, and that means they have to negotiate with the Republican party, no matter how ridiculous their demands are.
EDIT: Yup, it's 60% Democrat in both the House and Senate. That's a nice majority, but unless they can get some Republicans on their side, there's no way to pass any health care reform bill, and that means theyhaveto negotiate with the Republican party, no matter how ridiculous their demands are.
Compromising some is fine. Compromising away any public option can't be the only negotiating point. Certainly they can compromise about what kind of public option is available and who can access it. I just want some public option. This is one of the main reasons I was so enthusiastic about the Obama administration because he promised a public option. The bigger problem is that many DEMOCRATS aren't backing a public option. To me, anything less than a single-payer option is a compromise to begin with.
Compromising some is fine. Compromising awayanypublic option can't be the only negotiating point. Certainly they can compromise about what kind of public option is available and who can access it. I just wantsomepublic option. This is one of the main reasons I was so enthusiastic about the Obama administration because he promised a public option. The bigger problem is that many DEMOCRATS aren't backing a public option. To me, anything less than a single-payer option is a compromise to begin with.
Ironicly, a public option is the reason I voted for him too.
EDIT: Yup, it's 60% Democrat in both the House and Senate. That's a nice majority, but unless they can get some Republicans on their side, there's no way to pass any health care reform bill, and that means theyhaveto negotiate with the Republican party, no matter how ridiculous their demands are.
Compromising some is fine. Compromising awayanypublic option can't be the only negotiating point. Certainly they can compromise about what kind of public option is available and who can access it. I just wantsomepublic option. This is one of the main reasons I was so enthusiastic about the Obama administration because he promised a public option. The bigger problem is that many DEMOCRATS aren't backing a public option. To me, anything less than a single-payer option is a compromise to begin with.
So let's pretend the public option is literally the only thing that Obama has to give up. Would that be OK?
I want a public option badly too, but if it's a choice between some measure that can get insurance to people who need it or nothing at all, I'll take the something. At the very least, the government could tighten regulations on the insurance industry and provide rebates on insurance policies to those who couldn't afford them otherwise. That would be more than what we've got now, and while not an ideal solution, it's at least a step towards one.
NO PETE! We can never, ever, EVER compromise on anything! If we compromise on even the slightest thing, someone might call us hypocrites and make us cry!!1!
We have to remember that pig-headed stubbornness to even hear one word about compromise was key to our last glorious president's tremendous success in the War on Terrah. Wait . . .
NO PETE! We can never, ever, EVER compromise on anything! If we compromise on even the slightest thing, someone might call us hypocrites and make us cry!!1!
We have to remember that pig-headed stubbornness to even hear one word about compromise was key to our last glorious president's tremendous success in the War on Terrah. Wait . . .
Why do you criticize those who are disappointed that there is likely to be no public option? I agree with Mrs. Macross. The time might never get better. If you support a public option, this is a well reasoned concern. I applaud Mrs. Macross for wishing for what she believes is best and having a logical reaction when it doesn't appear to be happening.
Why do you criticize those who are disappointed that there is likely to be no public option?
K, I don't see you saying you're disappointed. I've seen you say, "Woo-hoo! Look at me! I predicted something! Kilarney +1! Take note of my astute opinions! . . . Oh, yeah, Democrats are teh suck. Here, look at this article written by some tinfoil hat wearing freak I found on this crazy conspiracy site." The only thing you haven't said that you normally say is, "All of you are hypocrites! I'm leaving the forum!" So, I"m not criticizing those who are disappointed. I am joining with others who have noted that you are, as usual, acting like an low-born ass.
Mrs. Macross was. Your comments were very dismissive of her position. Why focus on me? I certainly wasn't. I don't know how much more obvious I can be. I mentioned her by name. Since I don't constantly move the goalposts, I have the ability to have some sympathy for someone that I quite often disagree with. It's called compassion.
Here, look at this article written by some tinfoil hat wearing freak I found on this crazy conspiracy site.
Ad hominem. The article was not cited for the credentials of the author. It was cited for the accuracy of the predictions and the underlying rationale. How could you have failed to understand that?
The article stated: 1) The Dems passed a bill funding Bush's war. 2) The bill had a measure that was alleged to end the war by 2008. 3) The author analyzed the bill and concluded that it would not end the war by 2008. 4) The author alleged that the bill was a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation. 5) It was alleged that the conditions attached to US troop deployments by the bill were themselves so conditional as to be meaningless. 6) The Dems loaded the bill with allocations for special projects targeted to win over specific congressmen. The final result included $25 million for spinach farmers in California, $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia, $15 million for Louisiana rice fields and $120 million for shrimp fishermen. 7) In the debate on the floor of the House, supposedly antiwar liberals denounced the war, and proceeded to call for a vote to fund it.
So let's check the score: 1) True 2) True 3) Proven to be true 4) Proven to be true 5) Proven to be true 6) True 7) True
So instead of engaging in wasteful ad hominem drivel toward the author, why did't you use facts? Oh, yeah... you couldn't. The simple truth is that, other than being presented with a factually solid article,you knew nothing about the author. Making broad, stereotyped assumptions about a person you know nothing about... hmm... what does that remind me of? At best you mirror your allegations concerning The Tick. You proffered something absent a factual basis just for the sake of useless argument.
Your level of discourse is quite base. Between the two of us, I have made a much greater effort to stick to facts and logically supported argument. I'm proud of that. Won't you join me?
This is such a fucking pointless and annoying argument. Kilarney, you're being an ass. HungryJoe, you're jumping to conclusions. Can we get back to a health care discussion?
So let's pretend the public option is literally theonlything that Obama has to give up. Would that be OK?
What else does he want? He made it pretty clear in his campaign that he wanted to offer affordable coverage to Americans that are under-insured or completely without insurance and he wanted to reduce the cost of health care all together. I simply cannot see how private industries can be forced to cater to those that cannot or will not pay for their services; moreover, I think their meager offerings are so spottily provided that I have no confidence in them providing for those that pay for their insurance, let alone those the government creates some sort of voucher system for. Health insurance companies are, often, inefficient and willing to compromise people's health in order to make a profit. I do not want my tax dollars to go to vouchers to prop up this corrupt, ineffective, inefficient system. In my opinion, the only way to start on that path in any meaningful and lasting way is a public option. To me, compromising away the public option is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Maybe there is an aspect I haven't seen. I genuinely hope that there is, but that hope is flickering out. Also, I am not putting this squarely at President Obama's feet, the bigger issue is the many congressional democrats that are against any public options because they are so deep in the pockets of the health industry. Again, I am not advocating that the Democrats not compromise, simply that they create some sort of public option, no matter how meager to begin with. @HungryJoe, you know that isn't what I am saying. Health care is my main button issue followed closely by education. I am a hardliner about a public option. Headway in the right direction is great, but what I would consider real and lasting change can only be achieved through a public option.
He made it pretty clear in his campaign that he wanted to offer affordable coverage to Americans that are under-insured or completely without insurance and he wanted to reduce the cost of health care all together.
Institute a rebate program that comps the cost of maintaining private insurance. Once again, it's not ideal, but it's something, and something is better than nothing.
Really, though, we're all talking out of our asses to some extent. The public option still isn't actually dead, and nobody can really draw a conclusion on the health care bill because there are still 3 different versions floating around. Part of the problem with having this debate is that nobody really knows what exactly is being debated.
We'll see what the President has to say on the 9th. It better be good.
Institute a rebate program that comps the cost of maintaining private insurance. Once again, it's not ideal, but it's something, and something is better than nothing.
So throw tax payer money at the health insurance that is already efficient and often refuses care to those that need it rather than create a government option that would have a lower overhead and provide any necessary care regardless of pre-existing conditions or the nature of the illness? Yay, lets pay health insurance companies that screw us up-down-and-sideways even more money!!!! Whoopy!
Institute a rebate program that comps the cost of maintaining private insurance. Once again, it's not ideal, but it's something, and something is better than nothing.
So throw tax payer money at the health insurance that is already efficient and often refuses care to those that need it rather than create a government option that would have a lower overhead and provide any necessary care regardless of pre-existing conditions or the nature of the illness? Yay, lets pay health insurance companies that screw us up-down-and-sideways even more money!!!! Whoopy!
Well, as I said before, you would need to tighten up regulations on the health insurance industry as well. I'm not in favor of just throwing money at insurance companies. You could maybe institute a policy where they charge a higher premium to those with a preexisting condition, but cap it at, say, no more than 150% of the average cost of insurance. Make them jump through more hoops in order to deny coverage, or create a government appeals process where a committee gets to review a rejected claim, direct a fine at the company if they've denied the claim without cause, and then comp the cost of the coverage using said fine. That's just one thought.
Even if it were to just be a program to comp people for owning private insurance, that's still better than having people go without insurance at all. It's a small step, but it's not useless.
I'm still waiting to hear that the public option is officially dead. I just keep hearing a bunch of talking heads spouting off about how it seems to be dead.
I am just readying myself for further disappointment. We remembered what happened to the Clinton health reform initiative.
That's exactly why I would be satisfied with anything. You know how powerful that lobby is and you know how willing their brain-dead tea-bagger zombie followers are to protest against and vote against their own best interests. If anything, the machine in place now to oppose any change is more crazy and powerful than it was back then. In the face of that, any change at all would be a major victory.
I would be very pleased even if the only thing that changed was the passage of some regulation that got rid of the stupid "pre-existing condition" card that the insurance companies constantly play.
Institute a rebate program that comps the cost of maintaining private insurance. Once again, it's not ideal, but it's something, and something is better than nothing.
Wasn't this John McCain's proposal during the election? I think it was something like a $5000 tax credit. Personally I would love to see this coupled with an end to employer-based health insurance tax exemptions. Let companies fight it out like they're supposed to.
I would be very pleased even if the only thing that changed was the passage of some regulation that got rid of the stupid "pre-existing condition" card that the insurance companies constantly play.
Yeah, I agree, though it should be done within reason. Blue Cross shouldn't have to cover someone who only sought out insurance after their leg turned black. Denying people who have been paying into a policy for years, however, absolutely needs to be stopped.
Well, at least without the private option douche bag tea bagging Americas can sleep safe. Knowing that their grandmothers wont be subject to Obama's Nazi socialist death panels.
Yeah, I agree, though it should be done within reason. Blue Cross shouldn't have to cover someone who only sought out insurance after their leg turned black. Denying people who have been paying into a policy for years, however, absolutely needs to be stopped.
I agree with that, however current policy says insurance can drop you for, well, anything they want really. In addition, that guy whose leg turned black may not have been able to afford the insurance all along. What then?
Here's what I want from a private insurance company: 1. Consistent, affordable pricing. None of this "Oh, you had a surgery once? We're going to have to charge you an arbitrary amount more than you used to pay." 2. Disallow the ability to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions and disallowing the follow up of that, which is to charge ludicrous premiums or not cover the condition. Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate so heavily because, in short, it's killing people. 3. Cover everything. I'm paying monthly to be sure that if I come down with something or need a surgery, I'm not going to pay in addition to my monthly charges. Maybe a small co-pay, but $500 for an ambulance is insulting. What the fuck am I paying a company for if I'm going to be blasted into bankruptcy anyhow by the litany of charges I'd still end up paying if I had to go to the hospital in an emergency situation? What use is the insurance company if they only pay a fraction of a cancer treatment and I end up going broke?
To anyone who will whine about private companies needing to make a profit, it should never be allowed at the expense of human lives. If they are having trouble making a profit while claiming to be doing what their businesses are supposed to do, then they're doing it wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the trillion dollar medical insurance/drug industry taking a billion dollar hit if it saves lives, particularly mine.
This is also why I wanted a public option so badly. I'd happily opt to pay more on my taxes and know, for sure, that I'd get the appropriate care at an affordable price. I know that I would be able to see a doctor or get a surgery and not suddenly be living in poverty afterwords. Insurance companies can bitch and moan about "loosing customers" but if your product sucks and is senselessly expensive, why should I continue to pay for it when there's something better?
Well, at least without the private option douche bag tea bagging Americas can sleep safe. Knowing that their grandmothers wont be subject to Obama's Nazi socialist death panels.
Even if this were true, it would be lower on my list of concerns than the identity of whoever Ben Afleck is seeing/dating/engaged to right now or what happens to my fingernail clippings after I discard them. I just cannot imagine why anyone would care.
Apparently some conservatives are freaking out over President Obama diabolical plans to... wait for it... give a speech to schoolchildren encouraging them to take their studies seriously and stay in school. They are afraid that the President is attempting to "indoctrinate" their children and spread his "socialist ideology". I won't even touch the insanity of calling Obama a socialist as it has been well covered elsewhere. Regardless of whatever spin the GOP wants to put on it, the White House has made it clear several times that the content of the speech series does not address policy at all. It is merely a campaign to reduce drop out rates. Apparently having the American President address students about the importance of education is just too scary and outrageous for these 'patriots' to handle. Fine, I say. Keep those children at home on the day of the speech or, better yet, pull them out of the publicly funded and operated school system since their parents are so afraid any social programs and the American President whose administration is currently overseeing them.
Regarding the compromise issue / tightening of regulations - I don't believe that is a viable option whatsoever; you need that basic public alternative. The public alternative gives a guaranteed baseline of health care, if insurance companies can't match the public alternative, they go out of business or actually give good quality service. There are no medical insurance companies that are large in the US anywhere else because they thrive on a market where they hardly ever have to pay up.
It would be better to commit political suicide and push the public option through, just to see how the uneducated masses respond to it, use it and force all the insurance companies immediately pull up their socks or die. It would be better to go out with one term, changing the history of US social security and society for the better than for a useless war on terror and being a C grade student.
Apparently some conservatives are freaking out over President Obama diabolical plans to... wait for it...give a speech to schoolchildren encouraging them to take their studies seriously and stay in school.They are afraid that the President is attempting to "indoctrinate" their children and spread his "socialist ideology". I won't even touch the insanity of calling Obama a socialist as it has been well covered elsewhere. Regardless of whatever spin the GOP wants to put on it, the White House has made it clear several times that the content of the speech series does not address policy at all. It is merely a campaign to reduce drop out rates. Apparently having the American President address students about the importance of education is just too scary and outrageous for these 'patriots' to handle. Fine, I say. Keep those children at home on the day of the speech or, better yet, pull them out of the publicly funded and operated school system since their parents are so afraid any social programs and the American President whose administration is currently overseeing them.
I couldn't help but wish that some parents would get in trouble for dishonestly calling in "sick" to work over this idiocy.
If you ask me, I don't really think this should make the news. Further public acknowledgement of such paranoid bullshit seems to give more to their validity than to their discredit. How about we write a news article about people’s retarded opinions –after- they hear the speech, instead of their mindless presumptions? Too novel?
Comments
EDIT: Yup, it's 60% Democrat in both the House and Senate. That's a nice majority, but unless they can get some Republicans on their side, there's no way to pass any health care reform bill, and that means they have to negotiate with the Republican party, no matter how ridiculous their demands are.
EDIT 2: Obama will address a joint session of Congress on the 9th to discuss health care reform. This marks the third time since 1993 that a President has addressed a joint session on a specific topic; Bush did so to discuss the 9/11 attacks, and Clinton did it to discuss....health care reform.
To me, anything less than a single-payer option is a compromise to begin with.
I want a public option badly too, but if it's a choice between some measure that can get insurance to people who need it or nothing at all, I'll take the something. At the very least, the government could tighten regulations on the insurance industry and provide rebates on insurance policies to those who couldn't afford them otherwise. That would be more than what we've got now, and while not an ideal solution, it's at least a step towards one.
We have to remember that pig-headed stubbornness to even hear one word about compromise was key to our last glorious president's tremendous success in the War on Terrah. Wait . . .
And if memory serves me correctly, didn't the Democrats fund Bush's war on terror? Oh yeah... they did many times. I don't think either party should be too proud. This author had some good predictions. The Dems are still happily driving the war bus.
The article stated:
1) The Dems passed a bill funding Bush's war.
2) The bill had a measure that was alleged to end the war by 2008.
3) The author analyzed the bill and concluded that it would not end the war by 2008.
4) The author alleged that the bill was a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation.
5) It was alleged that the conditions attached to US troop deployments by the bill were themselves so conditional as to be meaningless.
6) The Dems loaded the bill with allocations for special projects targeted to win over specific congressmen. The final result included $25 million for spinach farmers in California, $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia, $15 million for Louisiana rice fields and $120 million for shrimp fishermen.
7) In the debate on the floor of the House, supposedly antiwar liberals denounced the war, and proceeded to call for a vote to fund it.
So let's check the score:
1) True
2) True
3) Proven to be true
4) Proven to be true
5) Proven to be true
6) True
7) True
So instead of engaging in wasteful ad hominem drivel toward the author, why did't you use facts? Oh, yeah... you couldn't. The simple truth is that, other than being presented with a factually solid article,you knew nothing about the author. Making broad, stereotyped assumptions about a person you know nothing about... hmm... what does that remind me of? At best you mirror your allegations concerning The Tick. You proffered something absent a factual basis just for the sake of useless argument.
Your level of discourse is quite base. Between the two of us, I have made a much greater effort to stick to facts and logically supported argument. I'm proud of that. Won't you join me?
In my opinion, the only way to start on that path in any meaningful and lasting way is a public option. To me, compromising away the public option is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Maybe there is an aspect I haven't seen. I genuinely hope that there is, but that hope is flickering out.
Also, I am not putting this squarely at President Obama's feet, the bigger issue is the many congressional democrats that are against any public options because they are so deep in the pockets of the health industry. Again, I am not advocating that the Democrats not compromise, simply that they create some sort of public option, no matter how meager to begin with.
@HungryJoe, you know that isn't what I am saying. Health care is my main button issue followed closely by education. I am a hardliner about a public option. Headway in the right direction is great, but what I would consider real and lasting change can only be achieved through a public option.
Really, though, we're all talking out of our asses to some extent. The public option still isn't actually dead, and nobody can really draw a conclusion on the health care bill because there are still 3 different versions floating around. Part of the problem with having this debate is that nobody really knows what exactly is being debated.
We'll see what the President has to say on the 9th. It better be good.
Yay, lets pay health insurance companies that screw us up-down-and-sideways even more money!!!! Whoopy!
Even if it were to just be a program to comp people for owning private insurance, that's still better than having people go without insurance at all. It's a small step, but it's not useless.
I'm still waiting to hear that the public option is officially dead. I just keep hearing a bunch of talking heads spouting off about how it seems to be dead.
I would be very pleased even if the only thing that changed was the passage of some regulation that got rid of the stupid "pre-existing condition" card that the insurance companies constantly play.
Here's what I want from a private insurance company:
1. Consistent, affordable pricing. None of this "Oh, you had a surgery once? We're going to have to charge you an arbitrary amount more than you used to pay."
2. Disallow the ability to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions and disallowing the follow up of that, which is to charge ludicrous premiums or not cover the condition. Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate so heavily because, in short, it's killing people.
3. Cover everything. I'm paying monthly to be sure that if I come down with something or need a surgery, I'm not going to pay in addition to my monthly charges. Maybe a small co-pay, but $500 for an ambulance is insulting. What the fuck am I paying a company for if I'm going to be blasted into bankruptcy anyhow by the litany of charges I'd still end up paying if I had to go to the hospital in an emergency situation? What use is the insurance company if they only pay a fraction of a cancer treatment and I end up going broke?
To anyone who will whine about private companies needing to make a profit, it should never be allowed at the expense of human lives. If they are having trouble making a profit while claiming to be doing what their businesses are supposed to do, then they're doing it wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the trillion dollar medical insurance/drug industry taking a billion dollar hit if it saves lives, particularly mine.
This is also why I wanted a public option so badly. I'd happily opt to pay more on my taxes and know, for sure, that I'd get the appropriate care at an affordable price. I know that I would be able to see a doctor or get a surgery and not suddenly be living in poverty afterwords. Insurance companies can bitch and moan about "loosing customers" but if your product sucks and is senselessly expensive, why should I continue to pay for it when there's something better?
Obama will indoctrinate your children.
Obama will mandate circumcision. (Granted, Limbaugh said it so it's an obvious lie, but still...)
The VA will tell vets to commit suicide.(Way to warrgharbl, Steele.)
If you're over 50, you will be denied surgeries, just like in Canada or Britain.
Apparently having the American President address students about the importance of education is just too scary and outrageous for these 'patriots' to handle.
Fine, I say. Keep those children at home on the day of the speech or, better yet, pull them out of the publicly funded and operated school system since their parents are so afraid any social programs and the American President whose administration is currently overseeing them.
The public alternative gives a guaranteed baseline of health care, if insurance companies can't match the public alternative, they go out of business or actually give good quality service.
There are no medical insurance companies that are large in the US anywhere else because they thrive on a market where they hardly ever have to pay up.
It would be better to commit political suicide and push the public option through, just to see how the uneducated masses respond to it, use it and force all the insurance companies immediately pull up their socks or die.
It would be better to go out with one term, changing the history of US social security and society for the better than for a useless war on terror and being a C grade student.
If you ask me, I don't really think this should make the news. Further public acknowledgement of such paranoid bullshit seems to give more to their validity than to their discredit. How about we write a news article about people’s retarded opinions –after- they hear the speech, instead of their mindless presumptions? Too novel?