Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 09:33am PT
|
Holy f*#k I unironically agree with LEB word for word someone watch for dark matter vortexes and dimensional rifts.
*edit*
Also it's pretty hilarious that the one topic that LEB is actually well-informed on is also the one that she's far left of center on. I think there is a lesson there somewhere.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 11:12am PT
|
Don't let anyone tell you that there is no "transparency" in this administration, and especially compared to any other.
The healthcare bill, both the House and Senate versions are ONLINE.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show
Don't take any talking head or TV network's as fact or truth.
They often have "agendas".
Read it yourself. I did, and still am.
See if you can find the Republican's "death panels" in the bill.
See if you can find how healthcare reform will "destroy America"
See if you can find how America will be turned into a "Socialist" country
For the first time US history, transparency means something, this is
as close to the public being able to closely follow legislation in history.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 12:38pm PT
|
Lois, while it is true that Congress is responsible for crafting legislation, as with the analogy with your co-worker, Obama could have been much, much more directive in the content and direction of that legislation. His attempts at bipartisan crafting and support was a nice ideal, but because the Dem-lead Congress (even one with 59-60 votes) is so disjointed, there was never any clear 'message' to communicate to the public about a plan, which the Repugs exploited greatly, and defined the argument.
There is much about the Repugs that I find distasteful, but I do admire their ability to define an agenda, and then uniformly and effectively enact it. I suppose this is due to their overly-simplistic view of issues, which is effective in some cases and incredibly short-sighted in others. Nonetheless, it would sure be nice to see the Dems adopt some of this effectiveness.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 01:36pm PT
|
"There is much about the Repugs that I find distasteful, but I do admire their ability to define an agenda, and then uniformly and effectively enact it. I suppose this is due to their overly-simplistic view of issues, which is effective in some cases and incredibly short-sighted in others. Nonetheless, it would sure be nice to see the Dems adopt some of this effectiveness."
If there were not a permanent requirement that the Democrats have votes enough for closure, the administration would appear to be in much firmer control. We are paying a price for the republican reliance on filibuster as a generally applicable strategy. You can only imagine the stuff going on behind the scenes between now and the vote on the health care bill.
For my part I think the evils of the Tom Delay era of monolithic party are far more dangerous and ultimately inefficient than is the normal disorderly process of representative democracy.
The Constitution was intended to produce something that works, no matter how unpretty it may appear.
Just a thought.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 01:56pm PT
|
Apogee, you said:
"Dec 19, 2009 - 10:53pm PT
"You simply cannot let partisan affiliation get in the way of doing what is right. Sometimes you have to break from the party line in the interest of the public good."
Yeah, I agree, but I just wish Obama had shown more clear direction in this critically important issue. His strategy of allowing Congress to craft the plan (in a supposed bi-partisan gesture), which resulted in no clear, discernible plan that could be communicated clearly to the public to generate buy in, resulted in the Repugs running wild with it, and the public opinion cratered because of it.
I would have much preferred that Obama had stepped forward in mid-March with a clear plan (preferably with a PO/single payer option & away from the employer-obligated system), and pushed it through hard and fast. He had the political momentum and public opinion at that time, and in spite of his apparent preference to gain bi-partisan action (which is completely and utterly hopeless with the fanatical Repugs), it would have likely resulted in something closer to what the country really needs, instead of the sh*thole bill that is likely to be approved. "
=
I want to just point out that something like 7 presidents have failed to make this happen, and the net result of President Obama's approach apparently will be that it will pass. What you would have preferred was pretty clearly DEAD from the beginning.
So, what we get back to is the issue of political purity that progressives love to own: They'd rather get 100% of nothing, and feel pure and clean, than to get 50% of what they'd really want, and build on it over time.
By the way, the conservatives have taken the latter approach, and when you see where they have come over the last 30 years on abortion, over the clearly held beliefs of the American electorate, they have made breathtaking progress. They will settle for an inch, and they have come miles.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 01:58pm PT
|
jstan,
The Repubs love to walk all over the constitution in order to get us closer to fascism. If you'll read up thread, observe how they want to extrapolate "life" and "general welfare" to mean warfare, I presented the words of the writers to dispute their fascist yearnings.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 02:18pm PT
|
Ken:
What I am about to say seems tangential, but it isn't. When TV first came out around 1948 any time there was a camera around everyone started jumping up an down yelling, "Hi Mom." Really stupid. After fifty years of this we now have an environment, even here, where the only important thing is to get attention. Get attention and you are ahead, even if you are selling patently obvious falsehoods and other inanities. Become the Rembrant of spin and the world is at your feet.
This has become so embedded you even see very intelligent people caught up in this behavior.
Sad.
And destructive.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 02:36pm PT
|
"...the net result of President Obama's approach apparently will be that it will pass. What you would have preferred was pretty clearly DEAD from the beginning."
Yes, and it is quite possible that, even if Obama had come forward with a truly 'reforming' plan early on, that we would have wound up in the same place. Fact is, there is a much wider spectrum within the Dems than there is within the Repugs (and for the Repugs & their recent 'purifying' efforts, it's getting narrower all the time). There still would have been those Dems who opposed a PO/single payer plan, there still would have been that took issue with any support of abortion, and of course, there was still the insurance industry & big pharma that would have steered the whole thing as they have done...and we might well have wound up where we are, anyway.
Or maybe not. A clear vision and direction at the outset would likely have created a clearer, understandable vision and goal for the citizenry, resulting in a different set of public opinion polls. For all the effects of strong lobbying efforts, public opinion still means quite a lot to Congress- even some of the Blue Dogs might have shifted their positions a bit if there were much stronger, favorable opinion polls.
At the very least, the Dems could have made a little bit of impact on their well-earned reputation as a circular firing squad, well-skilled at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 03:19pm PT
|
After reconsidering Ken's last post, I am going to try and take a 'glass half full' view of this bill for a change- lawdy knows the negative parts have received puh-lenty attention of late. Of course, this is all assuming that the bill actually does pass, which should not be taken for granted.
For starters, and probably most significantly, some form of healthcare reform will have passed. It is very true that no administration since the inception of Medicare has been able to enact any kind of healthcare legistlation since, and that in itself is quite significant. The bill may not contain the truly progressive reforms the country really needs (in my opinion), but it does put the issue forward and probably has the framework by which movement to the ideal solution just might be possible. (Assuming a future POTUS or Congress doesn't repeal it. Oops...I'm trying to be 'half full' about this.)
There will be a significant increase in the number of people who are covered. Denial of coverage should largely end. (Of course, these will come at a cost... Half full! Half full!) There is a provision that should create a non-profit clearinghouse of insurance providers that should provide options to those who can't find coverage.
What else? Norton, you have been quite prolific in posting the positive elements of the bill...let's see 'em again.
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 03:42pm PT
|
I, too, am amazed by Lois' unfaltering logic on this thread. I don't know who to applaud more: LEB, or Ken. They both get it right in my perspective.
For Obama, these past few days may be seen as a watershed when viewed in retrospect from some future time. Two huge shifts in US policy toward a more enlightened and viable future. The baby's first steps, as it were. I'm digging Obama's pragmatism, his embrace of reality.
-Jello
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 03:52pm PT
|
As per Agogee's request:
HERE is What the Healthcare Bill Will do:
HERE is what the Republicans do NOT want to see happen:
1. Largest Expansion Of Coverage Since Medicare’s Creation: Thirty-one million previously uninsured Americans will have insurance.
2. Low/Middle Income Americans Will Not Go Without Coverage: For low-income Americans struggling near the poverty line, the bill represents the largest single expansion of Medicaid since its inception. Combined with subsidies for middle income families, the bill’s provisions will ensure that working class Americans will no longer go without basic health care coverage.
3. Insurance Companies Will Never Be Able to Drop or Deny You Coverage Because You Are Sick: Insurers can no longer deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They can’t rescind coverage or impose lifetime or annual limits on care. Significantly, the bill also ends insurer discrimination against women — who currently pay as much as 48% more for coverage than men — and gives them access preventive services with no cost sharing.
4. Lowers Premiums For Families: The Senate bill could lower premiums for the overall population by 8.4%. For the subsidized population, premiums would decrease even more dramatically. According to the CBO, “the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for non-group coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average than the nongroup premiums charged under current law.”
5. Invests in Keeping People Healthy: The bill creates a Prevention and Public Health Fund to expand and sustain funding for public prevention programs that prevent disease and promote wellness.
6. Insurers Can’t Offer Subprime Health Care: Insurers operating in the individual and small group markets will no longer sell subprime policies that deny coverage when illness strikes and you need it most. Everyone will be offered an essential benefits package of comprehensive benefits.
7. Helps Businesses Afford Coverage: Small employers can take advantage of large risk pools by purchasing coverage through the bill’s state-based exchanges. Employers with no more than 25 employees would receive a tax credit to help them provide coverage to their employees. The bill also establishes a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing coverage to retirees over the age of 55 who are not eligible for Medicare.
8. Improves Medicare: The bill eliminates the waste and fraud in the Medicare system, gets rid of the special subsidy to private insurers participating in Medicare Advantage and extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 9 years. It also closes the doughnut hole that affected 3.4 seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D in 2008.
9. Reduces The Deficit: Not only would the bill expand coverage to 30 million Americans without adding to the nation debt, it would also reduce the deficit by up to $409 billion over 10 years.
10. Reduces National Health Spending: A CAP-Commonwealth Fund analysis concludes the bill could reduce overall spending by close to $683 billion over 10 years – with the potential to save families $2,500. Even the most conservative government estimates conclude that the bill would reduce national health care expenditures by at least 0.3% by 2019.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/16/podesta-passing-senate-bill/
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 03:54pm PT
|
You're a fool if you buy that.
There's one born every day though.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:09pm PT
|
Now, now, don't take my word or anyone else's.
Be a real American, read the damn bill yourself.
I did, why shouldn't you?
I have even provided the link to save you time looking for it.
The healthcare bill, both the House and Senate versions are ONLINE.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show
Don't take any talking head or TV network's as fact or truth.
They often have "agendas".
Read it yourself. I did, and still am.
See if you can find the Republican's "death panels" in the bill.
See if you can find how healthcare reform will "destroy America"
See if you can find how America will be turned into a "Socialist" country
For the first time US history, transparency means something, this is
as close as it gets to the public being able to closely follow legislation in history. Promised, and delivered.
Exercise your right as an American, read the god damn bill yourself.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:13pm PT
|
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:19pm PT
|
"Be a real American, read the damn bill yourself.
I did, why shouldn't you?"
Because that takes effort, and a willingness to open one's mind beyond the echo chamber. Sadly, most people aren't capable of doing that.
"You're a fool if you buy that."
Who's the bigger fool, Chaz- the person who identifies a problem and tries to make a change, or the person who knows something doesn't work, and wants to keep it that way?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:30pm PT
|
Does anybody know if the bill still contains provisions that will allow companies to sell across state lines? This should be helpful in keeping rates competitive.
I find it very ironic that one of the Repug's latest arguments against the bill is that it will weaken Medicare due to reducing funding. Ordinarily, it is the Dems trying to save Medicare funding- instead, the Repugs, the same ones who hate Medicare in the first place, and wish it would go away altogether- are using the loss of funding to try to nuke the bill. Hypocrites.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:32pm PT
|
If it was any good, they wouldn't have had to buy-off any Democrat senators to get their votes.
A good idea passes like 99-1, with dozens of co-sponsors.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:47pm PT
|
LEB wrote:
"These people were elected to do what they believe to be in the best thing for the people they represent."
Herein lies the crux of the problem: Who they think they represent.
On first pass, it would seem to be the people of their district.
It is not.
A better answer would be the VOTERS of their district. But is is not.
A yet better answer would the VOTERS of their district THAT VOTED FOR THEM. But it is still not.
It is the people who give them money, whether or not they are in their district. This money is neccessary for them to reach the voters. Without it, there are no voters that vote for them (in sufficient numbers)
This was well spelled out, in example form, by Charlie Wilson, the man that beat the Soviet Union. He was a liberal democrat, elected in a conservative congressional district in Texas. How? He was seen as a huge friend to Israel. How many jews were there in his district? I think he said "6 or 8". It was the jewish population of New York, which got him elected each year.
I don't like the system, but one has to understand the system to work with it. My local congressmen acknowledge that it hasn't changed.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 04:54pm PT
|
Chaz, you statement makes me wonder if you have ever met with a congressman, or even have ever voted. You are confused. What you are referring to, are bills that are uncontroversial, such as resolutions in favor of "Love Mother Day." Declaring war on Japan in WWII. Otherwise, nothing passes with the margins that you are describing.
I believe I've pointed you to these examples before:
ending Jim Crow didn't..
Giving women the vote didn't..
ending slavery didn't..
enacting Medicare didn't..
the surge in Iraq didn't..
creating the interstate highway system didn't..
getting religion out of public schools didn't..
not having an official protestant religion isn't..
equal rights for gays sure won't..
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2009 - 05:10pm PT
|
Apogee, yes.
The bill DOES do away with the 1948 exemption from anti trust regulation
that the health insurance companies have "enjoyed" ever since then.
The anti trust regulation was created to stop monopolies and price fixing.
So, yes, the bill not only does away with their protection from anti trust
regulation, but also it allows Americans to "shop" for the best healthcare
program across state lines.
This means that people who live for example in New Jersey will NOT be
limited to ONLY what Aetna or Blue Cross offer, but will be able to get
the best deal that fits their individual needs, anywhere in the country.
This is done by establishing "pools", and encouraging competition rather
than stifling it like now.
Free enterprise "should" work through increased competition towards lowering
the ever accelerating cost curve of healthcare.
But again, it's all about freedom of choice, so why shouldn't Chaz or
anyone else exercise their "individual liberty" and READ THE DAMN BILL THEMSELVES.
Don't trust what the Main Stream Media says, don't trust what Fox Bullsh#t
says, be a Republican, stand up for your right to READ THE BILL YOURSELF.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!