Gee, affordable health care for Americans? Sounds too commie. J. Edgar Hoover would roll over in his grave.
Gee, affordable health care for Americans? Sounds too commie. J. Edgar Hoover would roll over in his grave.
And the American people wouldn't have to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars that this bill costs? Unless you think the cost to future Americans does not matter, then this bill is extremely expensive for Americans too.
I agree with social universal healthcare provision. This healthcare reform is a failure. Scrap it and get a proper one. Stop mucking about - there's a cheaper, less bureaucratic, less corporatist way of doing this. Obama's sucking up to the bourgeois is really fraying my nerves - and i can guarantee that it is to the detriment of both the Peoples' health and the taxpayers' wallet (and by extension to the fiscal detriment of millions of ordinary Americans).
Yes, Obama's a corporatist, trying to make the capitalist happy while talking as much like a socialist as he can get away with to make the Left blind to his rightist actions. It'd be funny if it wasn't bringing America to it's knees. State-Capitalism doesn't work.
I'll bet it won't cost as much as America pays today for medical health premiums? There are some things free enterprise doesn't do as well as the public sector. Strip away the profit and greed motives, and a whole industry that contributes nothing to America but just blackmails it for medical coverage can be eliminated. Americans should not have to work for big companies to get health coverage. A man's job foreman should not be able to threaten his children's health coverage. I know guys with health "small" businesses who can't afford it. Go to any other western democracy and you will not find peoples' bosses able to blackmail them this way.
I just can't believe the article that was quoted in this thread. I thought Obama got the message that the Bill that is recommended is not acceptable to the people. This is almost like trying to push it through the back door. Is this constitutional however to fiddle with Government processes so that a Bill that would originally not have succeeded with the standard process, gets to be voted in a different way? Sounds highly irregular and even corrupt and unethical!
It is just as constitutional as filibustering. The health bill is not unacceptable to the majority. It is just surrounded by noise.
The worst part is the length of it, which in its own says it needs to be completely rehashed so that it can be short and simple. If it is approved the way it is now, it is going to revisit the US as a nightmare for years to come.
Obama's one? Actually yes.
'Tis why I suggested getting a proper system, rather than working around the corrupt old one.
Actually I would make the argument that that is possible. More importantly though, you suggested these premiums are the cause of free enterprise (in you second sentence) which just isn't true. The health care and health insurance markets are two of the most regulated in the United States. Want to really reduce costs? Allow more competition and let companies fight for customers. Let Americans buy insurance across state lines. As for the employer-provided health care, again that is due to government policy - the tax code currently favors employer-provided care, which has led to waste for those who don't need as much insurance as they are getting and because some employees treat it like its free since they aren't directly paying for it. Getting rid of that unfair tax code would shift the market more from employer-bought to individual-bought, which would lead to more choices (and with that cheaper options) and not that middle man you suggested.
The cause of or caused by? Non sequitur? Typo? Whichever is the case, Americans are being gouged and cannot get treatment as adequate as (for instance) Canadians who simply pay directly to their provincial governments. In some places it has been decided that the costs of billing eat up all the premiums so its simply free to residents. In others a single male pays under $60 per month. If you are saying Americans lack the competence to create a plan that has been protecting Canadians for 45 years now, what does that say about US free enterprise and governance?
The next question is that in provinces where people pay nothing, government has to be paying it. Two issues:
1. America can afford it better than Canada. Try cashing in one carrier battle group. If that isn't enough cash in another one.
2. It becomes an election issue in Canada if health care doesn't work because government won't spend the money. The reason Americans hear so much about Canadian health care is people there keep it from going rogue like the US system. Americans have no similar control.
That doesn't say much for the ability of America to protect its residents and regulate its health sector? Obviously change is overdue.
Yes, but as I suggested earlier and you ignored, changing whether health is a federal or state issue is constitutional law. If taking control of the greed that is killing Americans is this difficult, how much more difficult and time consuming would it be to enact a change to the Constutition? And once that was done they would still have to enact new health legislation? IMO your suggestion is just a red herring to create more delay.
I totally agree with this point of view. Much better to start from scratch. No wonder they are over the 1000 pages in the Health Reform Bill. Too much papering over regulations.
Perfection is the enemy of what works. Why not get it working then make it better?
Because incremental reform has shown to cost a lot more- this was actually one of the arguments the Democrats made against the Republicans during the health care talk. Perhaps more importantly though, as this push shows, it is very hard to get reform in this realm passed and as such, even incremental change could be hard to push. Why poison the patient and then give him the antidote when you can start over and just give him the vaccine?
By the way, I'll get back to you on the other response when I get a bit more time (and I haven't forgotten about the UK example Dirk, just been swamped lately and haven't had time to look for that.)
The health care system is an integral part of the economy and society, its not a discrete component that can be "erased" and rewritten anew without significant impact on the rest of the nation.
And consider who will be creating the new system: Congress. Do you really trust Congress to create the largest government program in history? What qualifications are you going to use to demonstrate they are competent to completely restructure 1/6th of the economy: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the tax code, the US Postal Service? How many people in major government positions can't even properly complete their own tax return, and you expect them to understand an extremely complex system like health care?
Reform doesn't have to mean more government control and intervention. Thats one of the reasons this process has been so difficult, many people believe that the big government approach is the wrong approach. Sometimes its better to let capitalism and free markets work, millions of people independently making decisions in their own best interest frequently create an efficient means of dealing with a very complex problem.
And consider who will be creating the new system: Congress. Do you really trust Congress to create the largest government program in history? What qualifications are you going to use to demonstrate they are competent to completely restructure 1/6th of the economy: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the tax code, the US Postal Service? How many people in major government positions can't even properly complete their own tax return, and you expect them to understand an extremely complex system like health care?
Reform doesn't have to mean more government control and intervention. Thats one of the reasons this process has been so difficult, many people believe that the big government approach is the wrong approach. Sometimes its better to let capitalism and free markets work, millions of people independently making decisions in their own best interest frequently create an efficient means of dealing with a very complex problem.
Do you think that is being allowed to happen however? In September 2008 when the markets needed to collapse, that was not allowed to happen, so the big banks, which should have failed, should have been allowed to fail if we really practised what we are preaching, i.e. let capitalism and free markets work. There are so many lies and misrepresentations at the moment. First of all the country is bankrupt. There is a presumption of solvency based on years of forward debt that probably will never be repaid. That has nothing to do with free market, but mismanagement of Governments totally focussed on what looks good, and will get the President re-elected for another term. Or keep him in power.
Do you really think that the Obama administration's main objective is to do what is best for the people when he is trying to PUSH the reform bill through, or is it something on his agenda that he badly needs to put a tick behind so that he can use it in his basket of goodies for re-election? Having been the author of two books, that his editor must have had him rework until they were completely readible, Obama of all people must realize that the Bill is too much of a mismash right now. It is badly in need of major editing and rewriting. If he really cares about Government, he really needs to get on with the other things that are on the Government agenda.
Yes, a republic such as the one founded in the late 1700's by some people who left Europe in search of freedom.
I agree with almost everything you wrote.
In all areas (not just health care), the approach being taken by the Democrats is based on the idea that government knows best. A better approach is to go in the opposite direction.
They didn't find it in the 1770's. Many freedom-seekers were driven into Canada and their properties confiscated after the war.
Besides, constitutions must grow with society unless you want to be like Quakers riding in buggies.
Similar threads
