- advertisement -

The Rage Is Not About Health Care

Discussion in 'US Health Care Reform' started by Ellen, Mar 28, 2010.

  1. Ellen

    Ellen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,240
  2. Sarah Maddie's Mom

    Sarah Maddie's Mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    12,521
    I read this this morning. I think he hits the nail on the head.
     
  3. Lance

    Lance Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Wow. The only thing on target about this op-ed is the headline. The writer clearly shows me that he, like most of Washington, simply doesn't get it. He is right in that it isn't simply about healthcare. It's about much more than that. The healthcare issue has simply shown that this Administration and this Congress are willing to ignore the will of the people, and willing to pass something that the majority of the country doesn't want.
     
  4. chammond

    chammond Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Thanks for posting.I agree that it wouldn't have mattered what the issue, we would have had the same outcome, and I'm a registered Republican. Seeing the division in our country is hard, but it is harder to see it among the people we know up close. I don't know what this bill is going to mean, but something had to be done to fix healthcare in our country.
     
  5. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    I find this "will of the people" argument very interesting. And BTW, Lance, you are one of rational, conservative voices in this debate, IMO.

    First, the House was won by 40 seats, the Senate by 10 and the presidency by a huge margin. The base of the Dem Party wanted real reform, not this. This bill is truly a bill of compromise and is filled Republican ideas. The Republican leadership threw out all these ideas, and then screams bloody murder when they're all incorporated and refused to support ANY bill put out by this admin.

    The majority of people in this country elected this president and this Congress to do exactly this. This anger is way out of proportion to the bill itself, which would have been more palatable coming from a Republican president and Congress.

    Let's dissect the bill on its merits and weaknesses, not listen to the rantings of extremists. As I've watched the discussions on the left, people are taking the bill apart and looking at it -- trying to see what it really means. If Kucinich could suck it up and vote for it, then he saw the writing on the wall that this is as far as we can go at this point. The left has compromised enormously for this bill. There is absolutely no give on the Republican side. None. They got tons of what they wanted and they are unwilling to support anything. Then they try to poison the public and stir up rage. Unbelievable.
     
  6. Karenwith4

    Karenwith4 Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    Lance, can you explain something to me? You and I touched on it in the other thread but we didn't explore it. Let's hope the shouter(s) will stay out of this thread.

    On what basis are people stating that the majority of the country doesn't want this? From the sidelines where I sit it seems to me that health care reform was a huge part of the discussion of your recent election and infact formed the much of basis for the Obama campaign and at least part of the reason for his victory. Does your president and your government not have a mandate to enact reform then?
    Is it because it is insurance reform rather than a UHC plan that people are objecting? I ask because on these forums before the election, what I heard often from those who opposed UHC was that insurance reform was what was needed.
    Is it purely the form the details have taken? Because if that is the case, wouldn't it have been important for the Republicans to be involved in the discussion. Did they not choose it remove themselves from the discussion (as David Frum suggested was their strategy). Did the Rep. not essentially vet these ideas with Romney's plan?

    I know someone will pull out a poll from somewhere - and I would be interested to read it - as long as it isn't from the NewRepublic type site Rella linked to before :eek: (and my apologies if I got the name wrong but I am not going back). But what I am more interested in is understand why Republicans (mostly in my experience - I am not trying to generalize) believe there isn't a mandate for this reform.

    I hear from Dem. friends that it doesn't go far enough.

    I am truly interested in a non snarky discussion on this.
    Thanks in advance.
    Karen
     
  7. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    The new law is mainly a set of new rules that affect private insurance companies, in favor of those with pre-existing conditions.
    There is no "government takeover of health care", and even the proposed expansion in medicare coverage and new employer
    requirements won't take effect until 2014.

    So really, what tis the rage all about? It certainly does not appear to be about the substance of this new law.
     
  8. Lance

    Lance Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Short on time - headed out for a lunch with the local T1 support group with my daughter and the grandkids, and that's much more important than the discussion here.:D

    The poll numbers are reasonably clear - here is a quick article with come poll numbers from the Washington Post. 46% support / 50% oppose. Rasmussen has it at 55-42 against. Here is a summary of a bunch of polls.

    I think the election of Barack Obama was about a lot more than healthcare. Pinning his victory on one specific issue is just not possible. Had national security been the key issue in the election, John McCain may be President today. That's one of the main reasons why Joe Biden was selected as the VP - Obama needed his national security experience on the ticket. Then came the financial meltdown, and McCain was done.

    On the specifics of this bill, I'm sure many (if not most) dems think it doesn't go far enough. But remember, the Dems have the votes to pass anything they want. They can't even agree on where we need to go - this is a complex issue. I'm more of a fan of an incremental approach to fixing the problems. Our basic healthcare system provides great care - arguably the best in the world. The key is making that system affordable, and making it available to every citizen who wants/needs it. I don't think it's a simple fix, and I don't see much in what was passed that will actually fix anything. I'll leave the "fix" to a later discussion when I have more time.

    Let me finish with my biggest objections to this bill. Let me preface this by saying that my political leanings are as far right as you can get - probably close to pure Libertarian. The process for passage of this bill was the most disgusting perversion of our political system as I have seen in my lifetime. If they want to write a single bill to overhaul the entire system, doing it under cover of darkness, behind closed doors, cutting special deals for certin states just to get the votes, without time for anyone to read and digest what was in the bill is a joke. Had this been an open process, as then candidate Obama committed to during the campaign, I may have disagreements with the outcome, but would at least feel like Congress was truly trying to represent the American people. Instead, like many others, I feel like this was all about the special backroom deals, and not about providing anything of value to the people. On top of that, the fiscal sleight of had that they have used to attempt to show that this is deficit neutral should make any accountant blush.

    I only speak for myself here, and I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to oppose this new law, but we may not know many of them until everyone finds out what is really buried deep in the thousands of pages that were not important enough to read before the vote.
     
  9. Karenwith4

    Karenwith4 Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    Thanks
    I have more questions - hope you will come back later.
    Enjoy your lunch. :)
    Karen
     
  10. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
  11. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    So when Joe Biden said "We'll control the insurance companies." What do you suppose that meant? I'm assuming he's been somehow involved in the crafting of the bill.

    Maybe he knows something he's not telling us?
     
  12. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    Well sure... I do think the govermnment wants to control insurance companies similarly to how utilities are regulated.

    In other words, the new law lets health insurance companies continue to run as private for-profit enterprises, but
    imposes certain rules that protect people with pre-existing medical conditions.

    However, this new law does not create "government run health care" any more than regulated telephone and
    cable TV utilities are "government run media".

    So what is all the rage about?
     
  13. Becky Stevens mom

    Becky Stevens mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,719
     
  14. Amy C.

    Amy C. Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    5,560
    I think this quote from the article is the crux of the matter. The rage is against the people people in power who are either female, non-white or homosexual with the implication that it is time for the white, straight man to get back in power.

     
  15. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    The "rules" that are imposed will not allow insurance companies to operate as for-proft businesses. They will be forced to hike their rates or go out of business. The result for either will be the same, and we all know it.

    The rage is just that. The whole thing was passed under cover of darkness with the aid of bribes and political favors so that people wouldn't have time to see what was being done.

    Check out Tom Daschle's book. It's the strategy he recommended.
     
  16. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    What section of the new law forces insurance companies to operate as nonprofits? If so, are they 501(c) nonprofits or other type of entity? I only ask because a number of medical nonprofits, such as Smile Train, operate with less than 3% overhead (97% of donations go directly to medical procedures). So in the whole, I'm not sure that non profit status would be bad, but I had not heard that it was a requirement under the new law.

    Anyone worried about insurance companies hiking their rates under the new law? I've owned two businesses since 1997. Here's what Blue Cross did with their rates during the 8 glorius non-regulated Bush years for my company, which now employs over 70 people:

    2001: +22%
    2002: +12%
    2003: +18%
    2004: +9%
    2005: +23%
    2006: +12%
    2007: +40%
    2008: +11%
    2009: +18%

    (rates announced in December of the prior year)

    So I may have missed it, but what is the rage about in the new law?
     
  17. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    A couple of points, but first, I've been unnecessarily sarcastic toward you in some of my responses, and you have been quite civilized. I am sorry.

    1. To call them "un-regulated" under Bush is hogwash. Bureaucrats regulate, and politicians create bureaucrats.

    2. If this reform bill did anything, anything at all, to reduce the actual COST of goods and services, then hikes/rationing wouldn't even be part of the discussion. The fact is that this bill only shifts costs around. It does nothing to lower them. In fact, in all its wisdom, the government raised taxes on goods and services that it already covers. It's taxing itself while claiming to lower costs!

    The absolutely lunacy of that just illustrates how frustrating this is.
     
  18. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    My point that they will not continue as for-profit companies does not refer to their taxable status, but rather that they will simply cease to exist as an entity at all.
     
  19. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    First off Obama won by 52.9%, hardly a huge margin. Secondly, he won not because of health care but because he ran as a moderate (which he is not). This is why the independents & the moderates who voted for him are angry, they feel they were duped. Thirdly, he wasn't George Bush-people wanted a change. Both parties have some serious issues and both are corrupt. To say this was a republican bill is a falsehood, they were actually locked out of the process (as in physically locked out of the committee rooms) and if so, why didn't a SINGLE republican vote for this? The only compromise made was a demand by a pro-life DEMOCRAT not to fund abortion in it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  20. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    Yes, it's pretty typical of liberal talking points. This is nothing but a smear piece and it contains no original thoughts whatsoever. He talks about conservatives not understanding history, referring to the 'mob's' small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. He should really look at that night. He might then understand it was the Nazi's who perpetrated those crimes against the 'mob', not the 'mob' against the Nazi's. History might have been quite different had the latter been the case. He also explains that Conservative objections to the Health Care Fiasco really have nothing to do with the bill itself. Oh, no...you see, it's just that conservatives are both evil and stupid.
    Further...this little bill is really nothing compared to earlier congressional creations. This is just a convenient opportunity for conservatives to demonstrate how hateful and dangerous they really are. No need to address the merits of the bill. You wouldn't understand. OH and here's something very interesting about this too:
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...-conservatives "Did Frank Rich read Charles Blow's column and sub-consciously subsume it? Rich's NY Times opus of March 27 is a virtual echo of Blow's item of March 26."

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...#ixzz0jUabSUGK
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice