However, the mere suggestion by a top administration officials that the administration is willing to concede on a public option should give any proponent of a public option reason to be concerned. Only a fool would dismiss such talk outright.
You're right. How dare we have public officials who are willing to negotiate in order to get things done!
You're right. How dare we have public officials who are willing to negotiate in order to get things done!
The original premise was that public support for Obama has not been reduced by teabaggers. In light of this, I questioned the need to concede the public option. Necessary negotiation is fine. Unnecessary is not.
I understand that Obama has to work with Congress, and not the public at large. This, however, shows that there is a breakdown in the system somewhere. If Congress is not respecting the fortitude and will of the people for positive change, then something isn't right.
Of course this assumes that the argument of unwavering public opinion is valid. It may not be. Which gets me back to my first point - that complaining about the teabaggers is a waste of time. They teabagged, and it had an impact. It's more useful to counter them. Complaining about their tactics accomplishes little. Congressman Frank went on the offensive against one. That's the type of thing I'm talking about. He was passionate and confident about his position. It worked.
You're right. How dare we have public officials who are willing to negotiate in order to get things done!
The original premise was that public support for Obama has not been reduced by teabaggers. In light of this, I questioned the need to concede the public option. Necessary negotiation is fine. Unnecessary is not.
Oh, of course! We forgot that the only thing that determines whether a politician can negotiate is how much public support goes one way or another.
However, the mere suggestion by a top administration officials that the administration is willing to concede on a public option should give any proponent of a public option reason to be concerned. Only a fool would dismiss such talk outright.
You're right. How dare we have public officials who are willing to negotiate in order to get things done!
Actually, if it is true that President Obama is willing to relinquish a public option, then I foresee there being little if anything he can do that would make a real difference to the millions without health insurance and the millions more that are under-insured, pay too much for their insurance, or are dissatisfied with their insurance. A public option is exactly what I want from him, the terms of that option must be negotiable in order to get passed. However, I doubt that anything less than a public option will be all that helpful.
However, the mere suggestion by a top administration officials that the administration is willing to concede on a public option should give any proponent of a public option reason to be concerned. Only a fool would dismiss such talk outright.
You're right. How dare we have public officials who are willing to negotiate in order to get things done!
Actually, if it is true that President Obama is willing to relinquish a public option, then I foresee there being little if anything he can do that would make a real difference to the millions without health insurance and the millions more that are under-insured, pay too much for their insurance, or are dissatisfied with their insurance. A public option is exactly what I want from him, the terms of that option must be negotiable in order to get passed. However, I doubt that anything less than a public option will be all that helpful.
I can see utility even if there is no public option, and at the very least, it's progress. Not, it's not as much progress as I'd like, but given the divisive nature of a two-party political system, I have no hope that we'll ever have any substantial progress in a single term. That's why I'm a fan of Rym's idea of a new political party; I'm skeptical that it'll have any impact at all, but it's worth a shot. It's certainly a far better idea than what we've got going on right now.
You may feel that way, Pete, but I wholeheartedly disagree. We have a Democratic President and a Democratically controlled Congress. If we can't make real progress opening up a public option now, then I doubt we will see it in our lifetimes. As for Rym's plan of a new political party - there are other parties already. You are putting a lot of eggs in a small basket among a million small baskets.
As for Rym's plan of a new political party - there are other parties already. You are putting a lot of eggs in a small basket among a million small baskets.
Frankly, I don't care anymore. Normally, I'd have to choose between ideology and practicality, but I'm so disenfranchised at this point that I can't have either unless I go my own way. I'm done compromising with anyone who cannot present reasoned debate and cannot accept contrary evidence. I'm done compromising with people who can not or will not engage the issues on a high level. I'm done compromising at all. Rational action based on direct evidence is the only platform I will espouse ever again, and I will never deviate from this. If that makes me politically insignificant, then so be it, for my cause is already lost.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans compromise both ideology and practicality for political expediency. I cannot abide this any longer.
Oh, of course! We forgot that the only thing that determines whether a politician can negotiate is how much public support goes one way or another.
Either you are being sarcastic or you haven't comprehended my statements. I understand that Obama has to work with Congress, and not the public at large. I even stated that fact. I also stated that if Congress is not acting in the interests of the people, there is a problem. I hardly thought that would be a matter of contention.
Here is the logic:
If Obama wants a public option and the people want a public option, but Congress who represents the people does not want a public option, and Congress forces a negotiation resultinh in NO public option - something is broken.
I suppose you can argue with that premise, but I'm sticking to it.
@ Rym, I wasn't saying that your political party will be any more or less effective than any other "third" party. I was pointing out to Pete that alternative parties already exist. Third parties are great because they take one or two issues and whip up support for them until one of the two major parties take that cause under their wing. They essentially change the direction of the larger parties. They serve a very necessary function.
@ Rym, I wasn't saying that your political party will be any more or less effective than any other "third" party. I was pointing out to Pete that alternative parties already exist. Third parties are great because they take one or two issues and whip up support for them until one of the two major parties take that cause under their wing. They essentially change the direction of the larger parties. They serve a very necessary function.
I have yet to find an alternative party that represents any of my issues moreso than they are already represented by the major parties. The prospective platform elements put forth by Rym are the most in line with what I want in a political party, thus I am interested in participating and seeing where it goes.
I have no illusions about any proposal for health care reform put forth by the government. Public option or not, it won't be perfect. Whatever is put into place now will need revision and tweaking down the line, so it's going to be a gradual process to get it to truly work. Public option or not, it may not be truly functional in my lifetime. That doesn't mean we don't need to start it, and that doesn't mean that not getting it solidly built in the next 4 years dooms us to never have it at all.
You can project and plan to a certain point, but eventually, you just have to run the experiment and deal with the results.
Obama's advocating for the public option again. It looks like the Dems in Congress are willing to make health care a showdown between them and the Republicans. This will be interesting. I'm still saying that a public option will not happen, but the pendulum has swung slightly in the other direction.
Just read an interesting article at the so calledRomney Care, thought other people might be interested.
I don't have the video on it but sources told me that today on Hannity Romney finally managed to shove his own head so far up his ass that he was able to praise his own health care program while crapping on the one of the Democrats.
@ Pete: My point is not that a public option will be perfect from the get-go or ever. My point is that any progress other than a public option is so minuscule as to be laughable when discussing true reform of the system. To take a public option off the table this early in the game would just be inexcusable and makes any hand the Dems are holding far too weak to be worth playing.
@ Pete: My point is not that a public option will be perfect from the get-go or ever. My point is that any progress other than a public option is so minuscule as to be laughable when discussing true reform of the system. To take a public option off the table this early in the game would just be inexcusable and makes any hand the Dems are holding far too weak to be worth playing.
I could see a proposal that doesn't include a public option but does include other large changes that might still be worthwhile. Yes, the public option is the gold standard, but if we can drop it and get a whole bunch of other changes instead, it'll still be better than where we are now.
That said, we do really need to have that public option, and I will be displeased if it doesn't happen.
@ Pete: My point is not that a public option will be perfect from the get-go or ever. My point is that any progress other than a public option is so minuscule as to be laughable when discussing true reform of the system. To take a public option off the table this early in the game would just be inexcusable and makes any hand the Dems are holding far too weak to be worth playing.
I disagree, the health insurance industry could be cleaned up nicely with good regulation. Right now they have far too many things their own way. Like being able to drop people who get sick and not covering people because of pre-existing conditions.
If we assume for a minute that people don't want a public, that say about 80% of people are relatively happy with their current coverage, isn't far easier and more cost effective to just fix things for the 20% that remain.
*the numbers are not real and pulled out of thin air.
Either you are being sarcastic or you haven't comprehended my statements. I understand that Obama has to work with Congress, and not the public at large. I even stated that fact. I also stated that if Congress is not acting in the interests of the people, there is a problem. I hardly thought that would be a matter of contention.
Here is the logic:
If Obama wants a public option and the people want a public option, but Congress who represents the people does not want a public option, and Congress forces a negotiation resultinh in NO public option - something is broken.
I suppose you can argue with that premise, but I'm sticking to it.
Okay . . . I'm trying to process this . . . so what you're saying is that Obama and the American people agree on this, but Congress doesn't. So, Obama will have to negotiate with Congress and the result of the negotiation might not be optimal. Of course, as we have noted before no other president in the history of the U.S. has ever had to negotiate with Congress.
So, what you're saying is that Congress is perhaps not responsive to the will of the people. I think that is the most original thought that I have ever encountered in the entire history of American public discourse. I don't think anyone has ever realized this until now. This is a brand-new, ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting conclusion. Write a book quickly to capitalize on this epiphany before someone else sees this thread and steals this idea!
@ Pete: My point is not that a public option will be perfect from the get-go or ever. My point is that any progress other than a public option is so minuscule as to be laughable when discussing true reform of the system. To take a public option off the table this early in the game would just be inexcusable and makes any hand the Dems are holding far too weak to be worth playing.
I disagree, the health insurance industry could be cleaned up nicely with good regulation. Right now they have far too many things their own way. Like being able to drop people who get sick and not covering people because of pre-existing conditions.
If we assume for a minute that people don't want a public, that say about 80% of people are relatively happy with their current coverage, isn't far easier and more cost effective to just fix things for the 20% that remain.
*the numbers are not real and pulled out of thin air.
That still ignores everyone that is currently uninsured. The insurance industry can be improved, but unless they can supply health insurance to all of the uninsured, then they cannot come close to solving what is to me the most pressing issue.
The insurance industry can be improved, but unless they can supply health insurance to all of the uninsured, then they cannot come close to solving what is to me the most pressing issue.
I'm frankly more worried that the leading cause of the drop in life expectancy in America is obesity and smoking related death in rural areas. That's not even a matter of insurance: it's a matter of education and possibly food subsidies.
I'm frankly more worried that the leading cause of the drop in life expectancy in America is obesity and smoking related death in rural areas. That's not even a matter of insurance: it's a matter of education and possibly food subsidies.
Preventative care and access to proactive doctors can also help mitigate those issues and spread a greater and more personal education about the state of one's body and future health prospects could aid in mitigating those issues. While that may be your primary concern, I am concerned about people with major, urgent issues at this very moment that are making the choice between financial solvency and their well being.
That still ignores everyone that is currently uninsured. The insurance industry can be improved, but unless they can supply health insurance to all of the uninsured, then they cannot come close to solving what is to me the most pressing issue.
Those were the people I was talking about when I said fix it for the 20% whom it doesn't work for. A public option isn't the end-all-be-all of health insurance reform, we can work with the insurance companies to get the insured covered. For example, what if we had government subsidies for the insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions to off-set the cost of the increased risk to the insurance company?
I'm frankly more worried that the leading cause of the drop in life expectancy in America is obesity and smoking related death in rural areas. That's not even a matter of insurance: it's a matter of education and possibly food subsidies.
As my friend said, "until America cares about its health I don't want to pay for it."
So, what you're saying is that Congress is perhaps not responsive to the will of the people. I think that is the most original thought that I have ever encountered in the entire history of American public discourse. I don't think anyone has ever realized this until now. This is a brand-new, ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting conclusion. Write a book quickly to capitalize on this epiphany before someone else sees this thread and steals this idea!
So you apparently agree with me.. and yet you have to be a jerk. What is your problem? There's no need for that.
Gedavids, you're still ignoring the uninsured. The issue is not pre-existing conditions (though that's part of it), but the fact that SHIT BE EXPENSIVE. Personally, I don't know anyone under the age of 25 who pays for their own insurance. Either they're still on their parents', they get it through their job, or they're uninsured. That last category contains more people (including myself) than I'm comfortable with.
I think this entire debate is sickening. Rym, count me in to your party: Even if you push for a systematic implementation of eugenics, I agree with your other points so much more than (nearly) all current US parties.
Gedavids, you're still ignoring the uninsured. The issue is not pre-existing conditions (though that's part of it), but the fact that SHIT BE EXPENSIVE. Personally, I don't know anyone under the age of 25 who pays for their own insurance. Either they're still on their parents', they get it through their job, or they're uninsured. That last category contains more people (including myself) than I'm comfortable with.
I didn't claim to have the whole thing worked out! Why don't we subsidize them too? Generally speaking, they're a low risk group. Getting them affordable insurance should be doable.
My whole point is that it isn't a binary choice, public option or bust. There are a whole lot of ways to deal with this problem.
Getting them affordable insurance should be doable.
You forget the fundamental difference between a company and a government. A company is loyal to it's shareholders, A government is loyal to the people (voters). Now why use the body that wants to make profit when you can do the whole thing government non profit. All it means is that a few investors have less money and I prefer that to the alternative.
Now why use the body that wants to make profit when you can do the whole thing government non profit.
The main reason why anyone would choose private options over public ones is efficiency. A company has a lot more incentive not to be wasteful than a government. While a system centralised by the government could theoretically be more efficient, it's pretty much never seen in practice.
It is evident, however, that there are those who can't afford private health care, so government intervention is required for them to receive health care.
Comments
I understand that Obama has to work with Congress, and not the public at large. This, however, shows that there is a breakdown in the system somewhere. If Congress is not respecting the fortitude and will of the people for positive change, then something isn't right.
Of course this assumes that the argument of unwavering public opinion is valid. It may not be. Which gets me back to my first point - that complaining about the teabaggers is a waste of time. They teabagged, and it had an impact. It's more useful to counter them. Complaining about their tactics accomplishes little. Congressman Frank went on the offensive against one. That's the type of thing I'm talking about. He was passionate and confident about his position. It worked.
As for Rym's plan of a new political party - there are other parties already. You are putting a lot of eggs in a small basket among a million small baskets.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans compromise both ideology and practicality for political expediency. I cannot abide this any longer.
Here is the logic:
If Obama wants a public option and the people want a public option, but Congress who represents the people does not want a public option, and Congress forces a negotiation resultinh in NO public option - something is broken.
I suppose you can argue with that premise, but I'm sticking to it.
I have no illusions about any proposal for health care reform put forth by the government. Public option or not, it won't be perfect. Whatever is put into place now will need revision and tweaking down the line, so it's going to be a gradual process to get it to truly work. Public option or not, it may not be truly functional in my lifetime. That doesn't mean we don't need to start it, and that doesn't mean that not getting it solidly built in the next 4 years dooms us to never have it at all.
You can project and plan to a certain point, but eventually, you just have to run the experiment and deal with the results.
Also, the Daily Show pwns Fox News once more.
That said, we do really need to have that public option, and I will be displeased if it doesn't happen.
If we assume for a minute that people don't want a public, that say about 80% of people are relatively happy with their current coverage, isn't far easier and more cost effective to just fix things for the 20% that remain.
*the numbers are not real and pulled out of thin air.
So, what you're saying is that Congress is perhaps not responsive to the will of the people. I think that is the most original thought that I have ever encountered in the entire history of American public discourse. I don't think anyone has ever realized this until now. This is a brand-new, ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting conclusion. Write a book quickly to capitalize on this epiphany before someone else sees this thread and steals this idea!
While that may be your primary concern, I am concerned about people with major, urgent issues at this very moment that are making the choice between financial solvency and their well being.
I think this entire debate is sickening. Rym, count me in to your party: Even if you push for a systematic implementation of eugenics, I agree with your other points so much more than (nearly) all current US parties.
My whole point is that it isn't a binary choice, public option or bust. There are a whole lot of ways to deal with this problem.
It is evident, however, that there are those who can't afford private health care, so government intervention is required for them to receive health care.