Ax Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122002127.html I used the paper headline in the thread title because it's shorter. The online headline is: Passing health reform could be a nightmare for Obama. So Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Health benefits are overstated, long-term economic costs understated. The country would be the worse for this legislation's passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership. Hopefully, something will happen to kill this piece of junk before it becomes reality. Almost anything, would be an acceptable, something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Good luck I'd put more faith in legal challenges or rescinding it later It's bought and borrowed:silly: for now I'm afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The original plans were so much better. It's been vivisected of many of its useful aspects and what's left... what seems to be acceptable is an unweildy mess. It's going to take years of refinement to bring it back to what it should be, but in the race to get to sixty they've stripped out the cost saving measures, the controls, and a number of useful programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The original plans were so much better. It's been vivisected of many of its useful aspects and what's left... what seems to be acceptable is an unweildy mess. It's going to take years of refinement to bring it back to what it should be, but in the race to get to sixty they've stripped out the cost saving measures, the controls, and a number of useful programs. in short, they stripped out the entire original justification for increasing federal controls over the healthcare system. so we will get all the horrors with none of the so-called benefits (which I knew would never really be there) that the leftist snake oil salesmen sold a pathetically dense and easy to dupe public. Many of the dupees are exemplified here at the TG too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 The original plans were so much better. It's been vivisected of many of its useful aspects and what's left... what seems to be acceptable is an unweildy mess. It's going to take years of refinement to bring it back to what it should be, but in the race to get to sixty they've stripped out the cost saving measures, the controls, and a number of useful programs. While I don't agree with you on whether the original was necessarily, "better" or not, I think your assessment of the process is in concert with the notion made by the author of this piece, about this being Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The original plans were so much better. It's been vivisected of many of its useful aspects and what's left... what seems to be acceptable is an unweildy mess. It's going to take years of refinement to bring it back to what it should be, but in the race to get to sixty they've stripped out the cost saving measures, the controls, and a number of useful programs. So we get higher rates,mandates,fines and no savings unless they cut medicare in the future...This is reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 blame yourselves... and the foolish need to compromise with red dogs, conservatives, and republicans in order to gain that magic threshhold of 60. The Dems have taken something difficult and made it even more difficult. If I were Obama (well, first I would read the sucker, but based on impressions) I'd veto and send it back to the drawing board and give me something better. This was a noble quest, it didn't deserve the torture of a thousand cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Back to blaming everyone but those that wrote and voted for it eh? If O keeps to his pledge,he will be forced to not sign it anyway...like that's gonna happen:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 When I saw the news the other day that the Health Insurance industry is already having its stock increase by something like 15% as Wall Street anticipates new highs in profits coming soon, I couldn't help but laugh at how this was supposed to be insurance REFORM, not Profit Increases for the Insurance industry. The bill is such a joke its laughable. I maintain, that this bill should go back to the drawing board entirely, be debated at length, and not passed in a rush just because of Christmas. This is too important an issue to pass now and then try to band aid later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 With being so desperate to get something signed, regardless of how bad it is, before Christmas, we get this crap. It sucks that Party trumps everything, in politics. Symbolism, for symbolism's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 blame yourselves... and the foolish need to compromise with red dogs, conservatives, and republicans in order to gain that magic threshhold of 60. There are 60 democrats in the Senate. There has never been any need to compromise with Republicans. This bill is the result of 60 Democratic Senators coming to agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 This bill is the result of 60 Democratic Senators buying each other off. Fixed it for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The original plans were so much better. It's been vivisected of many of its useful aspects and what's left... what seems to be acceptable is an unweildy mess. It's going to take years of refinement to bring it back to what it should be, but in the race to get to sixty they've stripped out the cost saving measures, the controls, and a number of useful programs. I totally agree. in short, they stripped out the entire original justification for increasing federal controls over the healthcare system.so we will get all the horrors with none of the so-called benefits (which I knew would never really be there) that the leftist snake oil salesmen sold a pathetically dense and easy to dupe public. Many of the dupees are exemplified here at the TG too. I agree with this too except the insults. If the "leftists" got their way, this bill would be very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 There are 60 democrats in the Senate. There has never been any need to compromise with Republicans. This bill is the result of 60 Democratic Senators coming to agreement. There absolutely are not 60 democrats in the Senate. There are 59. Lieberman is not a democrat in name or practice anymore. And he significantly changed this bill from what the democrats want, to what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I totally agree.I agree with this too except the insults. If the "leftists" got their way, this bill would be very helpful. didnt mean for it to sound like an insult. (but it cant be denied that the snakeoil salesmen that I mentioned were in fact "leftists", not an insult, but it is reality) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 didnt mean for it to sound like an insult. (but it cant be denied that the snakeoil salesmen that I mentioned were in fact "leftists", not an insult, but it is reality) Calling people promoting government health care "snake oil salesman leftists" is insulting. Whether you meant it to be or not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Calling people promoting government health care "snake oil salesman leftists" is insulting. Whether you meant it to be or not.. I call the leftists who attempted to "sell" this "snakeoil" of lower costs to the public, "leftist snakeoil salesmen". It's a fact that they sold the public a pack-o-crap, see the bill as exhibit A. If the truth is insulting, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 There are 60 democrats in the Senate. There has never been any need to compromise with Republicans. This bill is the result of 60 Democratic Senators coming to agreement. That's not true at all. Olympia Snowe and other Republicans were consulted in committee and had a huge impact on this bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 When this passes, it will cost the Dems both houses for a decade and the White House in 2012. It's going to be a slaughter that will make 94 and 06/08 look tame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 in short, they stripped out the entire original justification for increasing federal controls over the healthcare system. The entire point of the bill was make health insurance more available to the uninsured. 31 million people would be covered who were not covered before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 When this passes, it will cost the Dems both houses for a decade and the White House in 2012.It's going to be a slaughter that will make 94 and 06/08 look tame. Would you like to do a sig bet? I bet you Obama wins in 2012. It will cost the Dems more if they pass nothing at all. Just like in 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The entire point of the bill was make health insurance more available to the uninsured. 31 million people would be covered who were not covered before. but I thought there were 47 million uninsured? so you admit that the "entire point" of the bill has not been met, even when the other "entire point" of lowering costs is completely ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 When I saw the news the other day that the Health Insurance industry is already having its stock increase by something like 15% as Wall Street anticipates new highs in profits coming soon, I couldn't help but laugh at how this was supposed to be insurance REFORM, not Profit Increases for the Insurance industry. The bill is such a joke its laughable. I maintain, that this bill should go back to the drawing board entirely, be debated at length, and not passed in a rush just because of Christmas. This is too important an issue to pass now and then try to band aid later. My health insurance company is non profit. I have no idea why anyone would buy insurance from a for profit company. They have all the same administrative costs and carve their profit out of your coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The entire point of the bill was make health insurance more available to the uninsured. 31 million people would be covered who were not covered before. While raising the rest of our rates and fining a portion of that 31 million. Pure genius...If you are in the ins business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 but I thought there were 47 million uninsured? so you admit that the "entire point" of the bill has not been met, even when the other "entire point" of lowering costs is completely ignored. You don't have a leg to stand on in making that argument because you are for a system where all 47 million are uninsured. Actually, it does lower costs through exchanges by allowing people to pool together who were previously unable to. A third of the people who would remain uninsured are illegal aliens. Personally, I am for covering them because it's the humane thing to do, but that is not politically feasible at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.