President Obama

[AtticaFlinch]

Sorry I missed the joke. It was a little too close to what one actually hears these days.

You are correct, there is exaggeration and ignorance enough to go around.

Ignorance is the real problem. It's amazing to me with all the available resources, especially with the web, just how much more uninformed the general populace today seems as compared to generations in the past. Case in point, I had a conversation with my father recently about the healthcare issue in which he spouted several far-right talking (shouting?) points about death panels, socialism and governmental ineptitude. Not once did he present a valid concern (and yes, they're out there), he just reiterated verbatim what he'd been informed he should be outraged about without understanding all those outrages was entirely manufactured and simply not real.

As far as joking about this issue goes, I'm an affable guy. I love jokes and joking, but this really is too big and important an issue to fart around about. I completely understand why you didn't get the joke. All the finger-pointing done by the radicals on the far-right might be laughable if it wasn't so vehement and dangerous. If the general populace wasn't so easily pushed to anger for reasons they neither comprehend nor care to comprehend, I think it would be ok to laugh off the right's hyperbolic rhetoric, but that's not the case. People are incensed, they're frightened, they're saying words like "revolution" and "secession," and all because the government wants to ensure the health of the people. That's just sad and pathetic. My country tis of thee, sweet land of eff off you working class loser, I refuse to share because my situation has yielded more fiscal results than yours, and even though I'm every bit as lazy as you, I'm going to pretend my success is the result of hard work and not luck and pretend your failures are due to inert laziness, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!

[TheNiche]

All the finger-pointing done by the radicals on the far-right might be laughable if it wasn't so vehement and dangerous. If the general populace wasn't so easily pushed to anger for reasons they neither comprehend nor care to comprehend, I think it would be ok to laugh off the right's hyperbolic rhetoric, but that's not the case. People are incensed, they're frightened, they're saying words like "revolution" and "secession," and all because the government wants to ensure the health of the people. That's just sad and pathetic.

In all fairness, nobody from the extreme right is throwing around revolution or secession because the government wants to ensure the health of the people. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and they are convinced that under the 'leftist regime' implementation of healthcare reform, that quality of care will decline, that forced healthcare rationing will be necessary and will be implemented by the government, and that this is all part of a broad trend towards nationalization (or an informal system whereas the effect is the same, even if there's a facade of private ownership). They articulate their case poorly, present it out of anger instead of reason, and most seem not to comprehend the underlying issues that make some of their concerns valid. It does get pretty assinine, but what's new?

On the other side, you have an extreme that exhibits cult-like behavior over a messianic leader and that rejects traditional religion and yet embraces the concept of sanctity of life (a Judeo-Christian value) as the primary basis for their support for a bill that they haven't read--because it doesn't exist yet. There's no apparent consideration for the intense gladhanding that is very clearly going on behind the scenes or for the potentially catastrophic risks posed by poor implemenation of well-intended policy; of course, with respect to these two criticisms, they seem to apply uniformly to the supporters of whichever Party happens to be in power.

[sarahiki]

In all fairness, nobody from the extreme right is throwing around revolution or secession because the government wants to ensure the health of the people. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and they are convinced that under the 'leftist regime' implementation of healthcare reform, that quality of care will decline, that forced healthcare rationing will be necessary and will be implemented by the government, and that this is all part of a broad trend towards nationalization (or an informal system whereas the effect is the same, even if there's a facade of private ownership). They articulate their case poorly, present it out of anger instead of reason, and most seem not to comprehend the underlying issues that make some of their concerns valid. It does get pretty assinine, but what's new?

I don't understand this concern. Even if people are given a "public option" (like Medicare), if there's a market for private healthcare, someone will provide it. So where does rationing come in? If you've got the means to have healthcare now, and you want to continue paying for private insurance or private healthcare, I'm sure someone will provide it. That's the whole idea of a market economy. And don't tell me our entire market-based economy is going to disappear because of Obama's so-called Socialism; we all know that's ridiculous.

On the other side, you have an extreme that exhibits cult-like behavior over a messianic leader and that rejects traditional religion and yet embraces the concept of sanctity of life (a Judeo-Christian value) as the primary basis for their support for a bill that they haven't read--because it doesn't exist yet. There's no apparent consideration for the intense gladhanding that is very clearly going on behind the scenes or for the potentially catastrophic risks posed by poor implemenation of well-intended policy; of course, with respect to these two criticisms, they seem to apply uniformly to the supporters of whichever Party happens to be in power.

Why is it that suppporting this president is "cult-like behavior over a messianic leader"? He is an intelligent, patriotic man and a strong leader. I'm happy to support our president. I think that's patriotic. But the terms of dialogue have conveniently shifted... if one didn't support Bush, one was an enemy of the state. Now, if you support Obama, you're a sheep following a false Messiah. Sorry, you just can't have it both ways (unless you are Glenn Beck...).

[august948]

I don't understand this concern. Even if people are given a "public option" (like Medicare), if there's a market for private healthcare, someone will provide it. So where does rationing come in? If you've got the means to have healthcare now, and you want to continue paying for private insurance or private healthcare, I'm sure someone will provide it. That's the whole idea of a market economy. And don't tell me our entire market-based economy is going to disappear because of Obama's so-called Socialism; we all know that's ridiculous.

Why is it that suppporting this president is "cult-like behavior over a messianic leader"? He is an intelligent, patriotic man and a strong leader. I'm happy to support our president. I think that's patriotic. But the terms of dialogue have conveniently shifted... if one didn't support Bush, one was an enemy of the state. Now, if you support Obama, you're a sheep following a false Messiah. Sorry, you just can't have it both ways (unless you are Glenn Beck...).

I think the concern is that we are heading down the road towards a European-style healthcare system. In those health systems there is a rationing of care by the govenment. Many don't believe the Obama Administration or the Democrats in Congress when they say that for those who already have insurance nothing will change. They are tinkering with a large and important segment of our economy and lives and the probablility that unintended consequences are going to arise is pretty high. For instance, in this entire debate I haven't heard any politicians discuss how we are going to deal with the supply side of the equation. If we are going increase demand by bringing in more people, then the supply of doctors, hospital beds, medicines, etc. are going to need to go up as well or you are looking at increased, not decreased costs.

On your second point, I'd argue that the president is intelligent and patriotic, but not a strong leader. He has handed much of his policymaking over to the congressional Democratic leadership. That's what worries me more than anything. Nancy Pelosi seems to be driving national policy...

[TheNiche]

I don't understand this concern. Even if people are given a "public option" (like Medicare), if there's a market for private healthcare, someone will provide it. So where does rationing come in? If you've got the means to have healthcare now, and you want to continue paying for private insurance or private healthcare, I'm sure someone will provide it. That's the whole idea of a market economy. And don't tell me our entire market-based economy is going to disappear because of Obama's so-called Socialism; we all know that's ridiculous.

To be clear, I was only stating the superficial and unreasoned concerns of the far right. Rationing is a concern because if the aggregate quantity of healthcare consumed is expected to increase and the supply of health practicioners is inelastic and the government is intent on forcing the cost of care to go down, then the only mechanism to create a price ceiling is to ration care by bureaucratic process. I'm sure that there would still be an unregulated option, but with the labor market for healthcare practicioners so tight, it would likely be prohibitively expensive. In a worst-case scenario, all that happens is that people who want a procedure done that isn't being approved by a bureaucrat will just go overseas for treatment...just like the Canadians do with us. As long as the US government still liberally issues passports to its citizens and does not disallow foreign spending on health procedures, I don't think that any of the right-wing rhetoric about communism/fascism holds water. So you're basically right, even if a "public option" eliminates the viability of the business model for private insurance, there will be a market for healthcare...in India.

Why is it that suppporting this president is "cult-like behavior over a messianic leader"? He is an intelligent, patriotic man and a strong leader. I'm happy to support our president. I think that's patriotic. But the terms of dialogue have conveniently shifted... if one didn't support Bush, one was an enemy of the state. Now, if you support Obama, you're a sheep following a false Messiah. Sorry, you just can't have it both ways (unless you are Glenn Beck...).

Pot, meet kettle. Patriotism is the celebration and support of the system of government, not any particular role (such as hearkens back to a King that rules absolutely by divine right) or any one leader (of many). As much as the political extremes like to throw rhetoric around about patriotism, it is assinine that they do not understand the very system of government that they each fervently embrace.

Btw, Glenn Beck very publicly threw GWB under the bus back in 2006 or 2007. You should've used that horse's ass Sean Hannity as the example.

[BryanS]

Nancy Pelosi seems to be driving national policy...

Big deal. She's 1 out of 435. She gets one vote, like everybody else.

[TheNiche]

Big deal. She's 1 out of 435. She gets one vote, like everybody else.

By custom, speakers of the house don't typically vote unless it comes down to the wire. But to ignore the formal and informal influence of this position is pretty short-sighted.

[HtownWxBoy]

Why is it that suppporting this president is "cult-like behavior over a messianic leader"? He is an intelligent, patriotic man and a strong leader. I'm happy to support our president. I think that's patriotic. But the terms of dialogue have conveniently shifted... if one didn't support Bush, one was an enemy of the state. Now, if you support Obama, you're a sheep following a false Messiah. Sorry, you just can't have it both ways (unless you are Glenn Beck...).

Bingo! Isn't it funny how Conservatives suddenly don't like America? When Bush was in office it was unpatriotic to not support the President let alone bash everything he does in a time of war. They do that now with Obama. When Bush was in office if he had been giving a speech before Congress and a Democrat did what Joe Wilson did, disrespecting the office of the Presidency, that person would be branded unAmerican among many other things. I see nothing wrong w/ Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar, that's freedom of speech, but yelling it out while Obama was addressing Congress was a complete showing of disrespect for the office of the Presidency. Now Conservatives are OK w/ that... how odd. When Bush was in office Fox News claimed to be the "we love America" news network... now they can't stand America.

Here's what I think. Conservatives aren't pro-America they are pro-conservatives. Conservatives don't love America they love the conservative parts of it. Conservatives aren't going to do anything to help Americans right now they are going to do whatever it takes to get elected in the next election. They claim they want health care reform but refuse to work towards it. They know if health care reform comes it will only help Obama... why would they want that?

If you can turn on Fox News and not see w/ your own eyes that people like Hannity and Beck are making stuff up to scare Americans b/c let's face it if Conservatives know one thing it's that Americans are easily scared... then you are an idiot. You are also being taken advantage of by the people u support. And let's face it, you know there are some people out there who don't like Obama b/c he's black... they won't come out and say that obviously they will just say they don't like him b/c they don't think he was born in America or something stupid like that.

It's becoming pretty obvious who the real "pro-America" party is and it's not the Republican Party. I've been saying that for a while now but wow has it become obvious.

[Gooch]

I don't understand this concern. Even if people are given a "public option" (like Medicare), if there's a market for private healthcare, someone will provide it. So where does rationing come in? If you've got the means to have healthcare now, and you want to continue paying for private insurance or private healthcare, I'm sure someone will provide it. That's the whole idea of a market economy. And don't tell me our entire market-based economy is going to disappear because of Obama's so-called Socialism; we all know that's ridiculous.

No politican will tell you this. But we should fear un-rationed care as much as rationed care. Why? Because un-rationed care will lead to shortages.

Think of it like this. If we made food free. "Customers" could choose from any items in a grocery store without regard to price. The store would quicly run out of lobster, the best cuts of meat, and highest grades of fish. Thus, these foods would only be available to the the lucky first-in-line, or those with "friends" in the grocery store.

When healthcare is perceived to be free, nothing prevents "customers" from abusing the system by overusing it - depriving it to others that actually need to access the system. The effect is the same as we have now. Only a finite number of "customers" will receive the limited amount of available services.

[august948]

By custom, speakers of the house don't typically vote unless it comes down to the wire. But to ignore the formal and informal influence of this position is pretty short-sighted.

Exactly. The speaker of the house isn't just anybody. She is the head of the majority party and as such has huge influence both politically and procedurally. That's why we get to see her smiling face so often on the news. My point is that so far Pelosi has been a notably stronger leader than Obama.

[august948]

Bingo! Isn't it funny how Conservatives suddenly don't like America? When Bush was in office it was unpatriotic to not support the President let alone bash everything he does in a time of war. They do that now with Obama. When Bush was in office if he had been giving a speech before Congress and a Democrat did what Joe Wilson did, disrespecting the office of the Presidency, that person would be branded unAmerican among many other things. I see nothing wrong w/ Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar, that's freedom of speech, but yelling it out while Obama was addressing Congress was a complete showing of disrespect for the office of the Presidency. Now Conservatives are OK w/ that... how odd. When Bush was in office Fox News claimed to be the "we love America" news network... now they can't stand America.

Here's what I think. Conservatives aren't pro-America they are pro-conservatives. Conservatives don't love America they love the conservative parts of it. Conservatives aren't going to do anything to help Americans right now they are going to do whatever it takes to get elected in the next election. They claim they want health care reform but refuse to work towards it. They know if health care reform comes it will only help Obama... why would they want that?

If you can turn on Fox News and not see w/ your own eyes that people like Hannity and Beck are making stuff up to scare Americans b/c let's face it if Conservatives know one thing it's that Americans are easily scared... then you are an idiot. You are also being taken advantage of by the people u support. And let's face it, you know there are some people out there who don't like Obama b/c he's black... they won't come out and say that obviously they will just say they don't like him b/c they don't think he was born in America or something stupid like that.

It's becoming pretty obvious who the real "pro-America" party is and it's not the Republican Party. I've been saying that for a while now but wow has it become obvious.

Unfortunately, that is the state of politics in America. Substitute liberal or Democrat in many of those statements and you get the same points. The problem is that this polarization serves those in power best, both in politics and in the media, but doesn't serve America well at all.

[TheNiche]

No politican will tell you this. But we should fear un-rationed care as much as rationed care. Why? Because un-rationed care will lead to shortages.

Think of it like this. If we made food free. "Customers" could choose from any items in a grocery store without regard to price. The store would quicly run out of lobster, the best cuts of meat, and highest grades of fish. Thus, these foods would only be available to the the lucky first-in-line, or those with "friends" in the grocery store.

When healthcare is perceived to be free, nothing prevents "customers" from abusing the system by overusing it - depriving it to others that actually need to access the system.

That's what happens when a price ceiling is put on a commodity, like gasoline or--from your example--lobster. But unrationed healthcare with a price-ceiling is implausible; try to envision 1970's-style gas lines, but going into hospitals and clinics. The visual impression of that would be catastrophic to the political party in charge. Hence, rationing is almost a foregone conclusion if the amount of treatment is expected to increase and prices are expected to decline.

I'm not sure what the rationing mechanism would be(and I have no idea what conservatives mean by "death panels"), but under Medicare, rationing is already so inadequate (and often subject to fraud)--which is part of what drives up the cost of all healthcare--that the government is unwilling to deny funding for a $60,000 back surgery to my frail 89-year-old grandmother who would subsequently spend the remainder of her years in costly physical therapy...to have nothing to show of it when she's dead and buried. Somebody needs to be the voice of reason and just tell her that they'll provide pain management for the rest of her natural life and nothing else. That is the image that I have when I think of government-sponsored entitlement healthcare. I'm not opposed to entitlement healthcare in its entirety--many procedures, including some kinds of preventative medicine, vaccinations, and providing for the effective treatment of communicable disease, clearly pay for themselves in savings--but viewed in context of how poorly Medicare is administered, I think that there's good reason for concern about how these new policies will be implemented.

[AtticaFlinch]

When healthcare is perceived to be free, nothing prevents "customers" from abusing the system by overusing it - depriving it to others that actually need to access the system. The effect is the same as we have now. Only a finite number of "customers" will receive the limited amount of available services.

And to be fair, the vast majority of the people who currently overuse the system right now are going to be the ones who overuse it when the government eventually steps in anyhow, and they've already got the government healthcare option. Let's take a moment and consider that realistically it's the elderly who abuse the system, and since they're already reaping the benefits of free insurance, the effect to healthcare supply will be minimal at best under the different system. All the others, the current uninsured will likely seek medical assistance to the same degree they do now, though moreso with preventive care and less with catastrophic emergencies, and their effect on cost will either be reduced or at least at a break even point. Their indirect costs cause the greatest increase in my premiums, as even if they never pay for their treatment, someone still does, and that someone is the insured.

And to TheNiche, overseas care is nothing we really have to be concerned with. A public payer option won't drive costs (and therefore doctors' salaries) down despite what a handful of televised Chicken Littles will have you believe. No matter what, our country is still going to be siphoning off the best and brightest doctors from the rest of the world. If anything, the public option will aid in reducing legal issues that currently plague our medical system, thereby reducing so much of private practice's income, thereby increasing profitability. If, on the off chance, the public option does force lower costs on doctors and hospitals, the reduced expenses will even everything out. The worst case scenario is a wash, and the best case scenario is a financial windfall for all involved. Make no mistake that a public insurance option bears no resemblance to the European system whatsoever. These are two different animals entirely, and the results will be nothing close to similar, despite what the fearmongers are saying.

[Gooch]

Somebody needs to be the voice of reason and just tell her that they'll provide pain management for the rest of her natural life and nothing else.

Many years ago when I worked in radio, I ran the "Dr. Dean Edell Show". Once I can recall him mentioning research that many times European doctors do not tell elderly, terminally ill patients of their illnesses or of heroic treatments. They can't be treated anyway. Doctors are intelligent, responsible, folks who we trust with discretion in decision making. I can't say those things about any governing official I've ever met.

That is the image that I have when I think of government-sponsored entitlement healthcare. I'm not opposed to entitlement healthcare in its entirety--many procedures, including some kinds of preventative medicine, vaccinations, and providing for the effective treatment of communicable disease, clearly pay for themselves in savings--but viewed in context of how poorly Medicare is administered, I think that there's good reason for concern about how these new policies will be implemented.

You'd have a hard time finding someone that wants to deny another healthcare. It's like opposing ending world hunger. A geat idea. But not practical.

[TheNiche]

And to be fair, the vast majority of the people who currently overuse the system right now are going to be the ones who overuse it when the government eventually steps in anyhow, and they've already got the government healthcare option. Let's take a moment and consider that realistically it's the elderly who abuse the system, and since they're already reaping the benefits of free insurance, the effect to healthcare supply will be minimal at best under the different system. All the others, the current uninsured will likely seek medical assistance to the same degree they do now, though moreso with preventive care and less with catastrophic emergencies, and their effect on cost will either be reduced or at least at a break even point. Their indirect costs cause the greatest increase in my premiums, as even if they never pay for their treatment, someone still does, and that someone is the insured.

The concerns over healthcare reform are all contingent on what is included in viable legislation. But since there isn't any, you cannot possibly predict what the outcome is.

The bit about preventative care actually reducing the aggregate amount of care provided seems dubious. It all depends on how the program is administered. There is such a thing as overkill, and if you're testing the whole population for non-contagious conditions that only occur in 0.1% of the population at a cost of $100 each, then each time that that condition is caught early on, it must save $100,000 in treatment to be an effective preventative strategy. Moreover, if false positives are a frequent problem, then that may trigger frequent and very expensive investigations into something that isn't really there.

It sort of reminds me of that Scrubs episode where Dr. Kelso advertised for free screenings through this very expensive peice of diagnostic technology, guaranteed to detect something that induces the patient to submit to an endless array of *billable* diagnostics and treatment. Scrubs provides situational charicatures of real life, of course, but that example does serve as an illustration of what can happen when preventative medicine gets taken too far. Again, the appropriate concern is how treatment will be rationed...and that's something that neither of us know, so it is good to be cautious.

And to TheNiche, overseas care is nothing we really have to be concerned with. A public payer option won't drive costs (and therefore doctors' salaries) down despite what a handful of televised Chicken Littles will have you believe. No matter what, our country is still going to be siphoning off the best and brightest doctors from the rest of the world. If anything, the public option will aid in reducing legal issues that currently plague our medical system, thereby reducing so much of private practice's income, thereby increasing profitability. If, on the off chance, the public option does force lower costs on doctors and hospitals, the reduced expenses will even everything out. The worst case scenario is a wash, and the best case scenario is a financial windfall for all involved. Make no mistake that a public insurance option bears no resemblance to the European system whatsoever. These are two different animals entirely, and the results will be nothing close to similar, despite what the fearmongers are saying.

You totally misunderstood. The scenario I outlined as a worst-case does not depend on doctors' salaries going down (although if it were possible to diminish the amount of healthcare provided per capita, then I would expect them to). On the contrary, the scenario is contingent on providing more healthcare per capita without increasing the supply of healthcare practicioners correspondingly such that the scarcity of labor drives up salaries so much that consumers cannot afford to finance domestic health procedures if the government denies them. As a consequence, they get those procedures done internationally. There's already precedence for health tourism, btw...this isn't a concept that is that far out there.

In this scenario, there could be a future political backlash over doctors' salaries, prompting caps on what doctors can make, but that would constrain the supply of new doctors unless we offer incentives to new med students (which basically makes it tit for tat as opposed to just paying high salaries in the first place) or unless we allow more immigration of doctors to the U.S. (which smacks of nationalism and a disregard for the medical/humanitarian needs of third-world countries).

But this is all merely speculation. Once again, I'll remind you that there is not a viable bill in congress, nobody knows the scope of what will be done about this vitally important issue, and everybody (on the left and right) ought to be concerned about what will happen. I'll grant you that unreasoned fearmongering is occuring, but you need to grant me that it isn't enough to counter that by saying "Cool it, guys. I can't tell you what's going to happen because I don't know what's going to happen, myself, but you have nothing to fear."

I'm trying to approach this issue from a place of reasoned concern that I hope is coming across as moderate, yet I fear that these concerns are being perceived as somehow polarized merely because I'm asking tough questions and pointing out that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Can you guys (left or right) please try to criticize my reasoning? Can you honestly claim that my concerns are illegitimate or unreasonable?

[TheNiche]

Many years ago when I worked in radio, I ran the "Dr. Dean Edell Show". Once I can recall him mentioning research that many times European doctors do not tell elderly, terminally ill patients of their illnesses or of heroic treatments. They can't be treated anyway. Doctors are intelligent, responsible, folks who we trust with discretion in decision making. I can't say those things about any governing official I've ever met.

The first opinion came from an orthopeidic surgeon who insisted that cutting her open was the only way. There were actually four different kinds of treatment; Medicare would've paid for any of them, but had the family not sought a second (and third) opinion, she would've gotten the surgery. This goes to show...1) not all doctors necessarily have the best interests of their patients in mind, 2) if they or the hospital administrators that recruit them have a way to game the system, they're prone to do it (as evidenced by significant Medicare fraud), and 3) the system for rationing Medicare treatment is grossly inadequate.

You'd have a hard time finding someone that wants to deny another healthcare. It's like opposing ending world hunger. A geat idea. But not practical.

I don't want to deny other people lots of things. I wish every single person on the face of the planet drive around in exotic sports cars, live in opulent penthouse suites atop 5-star hotels, facing the ocean, eat a different kind of caviar and drink a different kind of fine wine every night, and climb into bed with a hot little number at the end of the day. ...or that they could just live their life however they fancy. But that's just not realistic. All economic goods are scarce and must be rationed by some meand. Healthcare is not an exception.

[Gooch]

And to be fair, the vast majority of the people who currently overuse the system right now are going to be the ones who overuse it when the government eventually steps in anyhow, and they've already got the government healthcare option. Let's take a moment and consider that realistically it's the elderly who abuse the system, and since they're already reaping the benefits of free insurance, the effect to healthcare supply will be minimal at best under the different system. All the others, the current uninsured will likely seek medical assistance to the same degree they do now, though moreso with preventive care and less with catastrophic emergencies, and their effect on cost will either be reduced or at least at a break even point. Their indirect costs cause the greatest increase in my premiums, as even if they never pay for their treatment, someone still does, and that someone is the insured.

I've long stated that we already have socialized medicine, veiled as "insurance" and "medicaid". Much of the failings we're seeing now are symptomatic of socialized systems -not free market failures.

It's a radical idea, but I wish we could go back to the days of paying for our own healthcare. Everyone says "but I can't afford it". Incomes always grow to meet the necessity level. Or we'd see rising costs subside. There's no greater power for reducing costs that if customers refuse to pay the industry-inflated rates we see today. Does a Tylenol really need to cost (or worth even) $13?

Overall, we could probably, as a society, survive just fine with a lot less healthcare. Or grandparents certainly did. Everyone talks of the shambles of the "system". But I can't name a single hospital that doesn't have an ongoing or recent expansion project. Business seems to be booming, and there's no shortage of capex in the industry.

[ernie5823]

The concerns over healthcare reform are all contingent on what is included in viable legislation. But since there isn't any, you cannot possibly predict what the outcome is.

<snip>

But this is all merely speculation. Once again, I'll remind you that there is not a viable bill in congress, nobody knows the scope of what will be done about this vitally important issue, and everybody (on the left and right) ought to be concerned about what will happen. I'll grant you that unreasoned fearmongering is occuring, but you need to grant me that it isn't enough to counter that by saying "Cool it, guys. I can't tell you what's going to happen because I don't know what's going to happen, myself, but you have nothing to fear."

I'm trying to approach this issue from a place of reasoned concern that I hope is coming across as moderate, yet I fear that these concerns are being perceived as somehow polarized merely because I'm asking tough questions and pointing out that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Can you guys (left or right) please try to criticize my reasoning? Can you honestly claim that my concerns are illegitimate or unreasonable?

Anybody who believes in a concept, without knowing the details, is not very smart. Same goes for anybody who is against a concept, without knowing the details. Either way, the DEVIL is ALWAYS in the details. Politicians, both democrats & republicans, lie like hell & will do most anything to be re-elected - you're going to trust them to tell you what's going on??? I just hope that when (or if) they get a bill together they don't rush it through, like with other recent bills. There is really no rush (we have been living without healthcare since 1776), unless the bill is a BS bill of goods.

[TheNiche]

Overall, we could probably, as a society, survive just fine with a lot less healthcare. Or grandparents certainly did.

There is really no rush (we have been living without healthcare since 1776)

Well, yeah, those of our grandparents that survived childhood and reproduced generally were healthy enough, at least up to the point of childbirth itself.

I refuse to downplay the importance of healthcare, I'm just concerned over which is the best way to skin the cat. I certainly don't want to knick the bloated, pressurized intestine or the damn thing will explode and all of us bystanders be covered in rancid kitty poo.

EDIT: Be generous with the +1 rep, guys. I feel entitled to it after that last paragraph.

[AtticaFlinch]

But this is all merely speculation. Once again, I'll remind you that there is not a viable bill in congress, nobody knows the scope of what will be done about this vitally important issue, and everybody (on the left and right) ought to be concerned about what will happen. I'll grant you that unreasoned fearmongering is occuring, but you need to grant me that it isn't enough to counter that by saying "Cool it, guys. I can't tell you what's going to happen because I don't know what's going to happen, myself, but you have nothing to fear."

I'll grant that every proposal so far presented doesn't go far enough, but at least it's a start in the right direction. I wrote much earlier in this thread I'd rather Obama pushed much harder for more extensive reform and that what'll make it through eventually will likely be too compromised to be 100% effective. Still, I'll take that first step as a promise that bigger and bolder initiatives will follow. What I don't understand is the mentality that recognizes the problem but is so scared that changing the system will cause the world to end and quality healthcare to be pushed unceremoniously into the abyss. That's BS, plain and simple. We can't do nothing for fear of the outcome of doing something. Even if you disagree with how I see the situation playing out, you must still admit the rewards a system overhaul would bring far outweighs the risks. Sure, there's the opportunity for the entire thing to run off the rails, but that'll only happen if we continue to argue about it, holding tea parties and other forms of banal protests, and we don't cooperate to come to equitable solutions.

And to clarify, I don't in anyway suggest there's nothing to fear, just that the fear promoted is irrational. You're correct in saying I don't know what will happen, but the doomsday scenarios being mentioned as "what ifs" teeter on the precipice of ridiculousness. Again, to do nothing for fear of what might be is just plain cowardly. We can't bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. We can't sit on the sidelines anymore. You can only fill a balloon (or a cat's intestines) so much before it blows on its own accord. We can talk this over and shout and scream and drive a wedge further and further between the citizens of this country, or we can just bite the bullet and put a plan in place, any plan. Discussing this until everybody's happy and Madam Cleo's been consulted to divine the future outcomes is time wasted and about as effective as a meeting of the general assembly at the United Nations.

[august948]

I'll grant that every proposal so far presented doesn't go far enough, but at least it's a start in the right direction. I wrote much earlier in this thread I'd rather Obama pushed much harder for more extensive reform and that what'll make it through eventually will likely be too compromised to be 100% effective. Still, I'll take that first step as a promise that bigger and bolder initiatives will follow. What I don't understand is the mentality that recognizes the problem but is so scared that changing the system will cause the world to end and quality healthcare to be pushed unceremoniously into the abyss. That's BS, plain and simple. We can't do nothing for fear of the outcome of doing something. Even if you disagree with how I see the situation playing out, you must still admit the rewards a system overhaul would bring far outweighs the risks. Sure, there's the opportunity for the entire thing to run off the rails, but that'll only happen if we continue to argue about it, holding tea parties and other forms of banal protests, and we don't cooperate to come to equitable solutions.

And to clarify, I don't in anyway suggest there's nothing to fear, just that the fear promoted is irrational. You're correct in saying I don't know what will happen, but the doomsday scenarios being mentioned as "what ifs" teeter on the precipice of ridiculousness. Again, to do nothing for fear of what might be is just plain cowardly. We can't bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. We can't sit on the sidelines anymore. You can only fill a balloon (or a cat's intestines) so much before it blows on its own accord. We can talk this over and shout and scream and drive a wedge further and further between the citizens of this country, or we can just bite the bullet and put a plan in place, any plan. Discussing this until everybody's happy and Madam Cleo's been consulted to divine the future outcomes is time wasted and about as effective as a meeting of the general assembly at the United Nations.

I agree that the fear being promoted is irrational and self-serving for the pundits and politicians, but it wouldn't take hold with normal folks if it didn't hit so close to home. The recent spat with China over tire tariffs doesn't fire many people up because they have a hard time relating to it personally. But, most people can relate directly to healthcare issues. I myself have taken three of my children to dr appointments in the past week. For, me the healthcare system has always worked fine. The fear that those of us who do have already health care insurance via employers or medicare/medicaid is that whatever they do is going to impact us negatively, either raising our costs or reducing our coverage or both. There's going to be considerable opposition by the majority to changes unless it can be demonstated that the effects are not going to be negative. That, however, is an almost impossible task given the nature of politics and the uncertainties of tinkering with such a massive system.

[TheNiche]

I'll grant that every proposal so far presented doesn't go far enough, but at least it's a start in the right direction. I wrote much earlier in this thread I'd rather Obama pushed much harder for more extensive reform and that what'll make it through eventually will likely be too compromised to be 100% effective. Still, I'll take that first step as a promise that bigger and bolder initiatives will follow. What I don't understand is the mentality that recognizes the problem but is so scared that changing the system will cause the world to end and quality healthcare to be pushed unceremoniously into the abyss. That's BS, plain and simple. We can't do nothing for fear of the outcome of doing something. Even if you disagree with how I see the situation playing out, you must still admit the rewards a system overhaul would bring far outweighs the risks. Sure, there's the opportunity for the entire thing to run off the rails, but that'll only happen if we continue to argue about it, holding tea parties and other forms of banal protests, and we don't cooperate to come to equitable solutions.

And to clarify, I don't in anyway suggest there's nothing to fear, just that the fear promoted is irrational. You're correct in saying I don't know what will happen, but the doomsday scenarios being mentioned as "what ifs" teeter on the precipice of ridiculousness. Again, to do nothing for fear of what might be is just plain cowardly. We can't bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. We can't sit on the sidelines anymore. You can only fill a balloon (or a cat's intestines) so much before it blows on its own accord. We can talk this over and shout and scream and drive a wedge further and further between the citizens of this country, or we can just bite the bullet and put a plan in place, any plan. Discussing this until everybody's happy and Madam Cleo's been consulted to divine the future outcomes is time wasted and about as effective as a meeting of the general assembly at the United Nations.

So in other words, "Agree with me or else the status quo will get you!" That's just as assinine as any tea party, where extremists basically argue "Agree with me or else change will get you!" It is of vital importance that we have a thoughtful national conversation on important new legislation, not merely two opposed extremist monologues based in rhetoric, each pointing out how the other side lacks substance, yet contributing no substance of their own.

Here, I'll help you hold a reasoned debate: 1) how far should healthcare reform go; what is your stance on the matter? 2) What do you consider to be an example of quality healthcare, what factors enable it, what is missing right now, and what can be done to change things for the better? 3) You claim, "the whole thing run off the rails if we continue to argue about it." Cut the rhetoric. Why is there no time for reasoned debate?

Now, start arguing substance with me or return to the vapid recesses of City Data from whence you came.

[BryanS]

Exactly. The speaker of the house isn't just anybody. She is the head of the majority party and as such has huge influence both politically and procedurally. That's why we get to see her smiling face so often on the news. My point is that so far Pelosi has been a notably stronger leader than Obama.

Who cares? Elections have consequences. The Democrats won. She's working the game, just like Hastert, Gingrich worked the game. That's what they do. So what.

[BryanS]

[august948]

Who cares? Elections have consequences. The Democrats won. She's working the game, just like Hastert, Gingrich worked the game. That's what they do. So what.

You are correct...elections (and legislative decisions) have consequences. And, they all work the game. If you read the post I was responding too, though, you'll find I was agreeing with someone who rebutted an argument that the Speaker of the House is just anther representative, no different than any other.

[AtticaFlinch]

So in other words, "Agree with me or else the status quo will get you!" That's just as assinine as any tea party, where extremists basically argue "Agree with me or else change will get you!" It is of vital importance that we have a thoughtful national conversation on important new legislation, not merely two opposed extremist monologues based in rhetoric, each pointing out how the other side lacks substance, yet contributing no substance of their own.

Here, I'll help you hold a reasoned debate: 1) how far should healthcare reform go; what is your stance on the matter? 2) What do you consider to be an example of quality healthcare, what factors enable it, what is missing right now, and what can be done to change things for the better? 3) You claim, "the whole thing run off the rails if we continue to argue about it." Cut the rhetoric. Why is there no time for reasoned debate?

Now, start arguing substance with me or return to the vapid recesses of City Data from whence you came.

Meow.

I'll just begin, and with the exception of my previous sentence (and now this one), ignore your last sentence and delve into your questions.

1) I believe the government is a construct of the governed, and not uniquely (if you've ever studied American history or the political writings of John Locke) I believe it exists to protect certain individual rights. In our case, those three fundamental, inalienable rights are to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Arguably, we haven't exactly set the benchmark on the final two, but I can't comprehend that anyone could look their mothers in the eye and say the government solidly upholds our right to life without fail. And so you know, I'm not speaking specifically of people sentenced to death row or any other citizens who've blatantly violated the social contract. I'm referring to the average Joe, the guy who sits on a bar stool or a church pew next to you. In a more primal world, one more akin to the dangerous world our forefathers occupied, our lives were protected with military excursions into American Indian lands and naval blockades. Government resources were stretched thin and scientific advancements weren't far removed from the Dark Ages. Then, time progressed, and necessary military intervention diminished at the same time medical advancements progressed. We now have the means to limit our exposure to the dangers of the outside world in multiple ways, and as the actual threat implied from other people (with the exception of a handful of religious yay-hoos in the Mideast) has lessened dramatically, and the ability to combat internal microbiotic and other medical dangers has improved, I personally feel the need has shifted from protecting my life militarily to protecting my life medically. It's no stretch in logic. We spend public money on the military, an essential function, to the tune of half the world's military budget. Yet, we can't be arsed to provide free, universal medical care to everyone who legally lives here? That's balderdash, truly.

2) If I point to any one specific example, it's going to be easy enough to poke holes in their system, so I'd rather not go down that path. I will say this though, simply because there may not be a system that works to every single critic's individual specifications, that in no way implies the systems themselves don't work well for the vast majority of the citizens who utilize it. There are a bagful of countries who offer universal care, but sniping individual shortcomings doesn't prove for a moment that we can't get it right if we finally get ballsy enough to combat this issue with fervor.

3) There's more than enough time for reasoned debate, but there's no time for more of this continued irrational debate. Don't put words in my mouth. Again, what I said, is we can't make everybody happy, so let's not even try. Also, as I said, we can't ever accurately predict any future, good or bad, so waiting until we arrive at a potential future outcome by committee decision is time wasted. I can't predict what time I'll wake up in the morning, despite the fact my alarm clock is set for 6:30. Most likely, I'll wake up at 6:30, but anything can happen to get in the way of that. However, I can reasonably say, with all likelihood, with the measures I've put in place to secure a certain outcome, that I'll begrudgingly crawl out of bed at 6:30. In my opinion, to argue against the terms of the plan proffered for reasons as not being 100% certain the whole thing won't turn out badly is like saying I shouldn't set my alarm for 6:30 because I might oversleep anyhow.

Is this satisfactorily setting the groundworks for reasoned debate with you?

[musicman]

looks like acorn is having some problems! link

Statement of Purpose: Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

Vote Counts:

YEAs 83

NAYs 7

Not Voting 9

NAYs ---7

Burris (D-IL)

Casey (D-PA)

Durbin (D-IL)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Leahy (D-VT)

Sanders (I-VT)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

[sevfiv]

Here's a nice sampling of "the ignorants:"

[august948]

Here's a nice sampling of "the ignorants:"

Ignorance is bipartisan...

[RedScare]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090914/hl_afp/uspoliticshealthoption

Interesting that doctors would so overwhelmingly support something that so many non-doctors claim doctors are against.