I won’t get into a debate, as I’ve seen many, many of those, here and elsewhere. It’'s been debated to death. I KNOW ppl on this board have had ample opportunity to think about it and read some of the best arguments and evidence available on both sides. No one here will be swayed by further arguments unless new evidence/figures/arguments are presented, and even then I have my doubts. I will answer your question though, with a very brief explanation why.
No, I don’t like it. It is a compromise, and it doesn’t do enough to reduce costs and increase availability of health care. The best I can say is that it’s a start.
I think even Obama would admit he doesn’t like the plan as is, if politicians were allowed to be so candid.
It’s still an important step to make though, IMO.
The current plan fixes some bad things. There is still much to do, but that does not make the Obama plan a bad one. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
The problem is that Obama’s plan to start with was an enormous compromise, one that Clinton-era Republicans probably would have been able to live with. So the final plan is a huge compromise of a huge compromise.
The plan is weak enough that Democrats aren’t willing to get out and sell it, but the Republicans still act like Obama has handed the country over to the commie socialists. So it’s no wonder that public sentiment is against it, even though I’d bet 90% of Americans can’t even say what it does.
Baloney. This is precisely the plan he wanted because it was the one plan the insurance companies could live with. He threw all his campaign promises about fostering transparent government out the window so he could meet with insurance executives in private and hammer out a deal. He had a Democratic majority in Congress and did nothing to push them towards the type of reform that most of the people actually wanted.
I’m really tired of this “woe is Obama” crap. He made his position abundantly clear when he spit in the face of his “congenitally pessimistic” base at that Greenwich fundraiser.
It’s a broken half-ass compromised law that if implemented as is will make things even worse. Fortunately, it won’t be implemented as it. Things don’t fully kick in until 2014 and in the next four years I expect the law to be revised. I doubt there will be a large scale fight to change it, but there will be an amendment here, a regulatory decision there, and so on. What starts in 2014 won’t be exactly what was passed in 2010. Hopefully, those changes will fix some of the problems.
There is one potentially HUGE problem that could lead to either the whole thing going south or it being much more expensive, to the point of being unworkable. Some states have brought suit agains the government claiming that the feds have no authority to mandate that people buy a product. Whatever you think of Obama’s plan, it hinges on everyone buying insurance. If they don’t, none of the number work at all.
Ironically, the defense the government is now waging is that “of course they can do it, just like any other tax”. Even though Obama had sworn up and down that it was NOT a tax. This argument does save the workability of the the health care plan, but it will reveal Obama to be the smiling, lying sack of shit that he is. (Like 99% of politicians on both sides.)
So, we either already have a tax increase that has been passed or Obama’s health care plan can’t work.
It’s not going to be found unconstitutional. There is waaaaay too much precedent. Obama may have to do a little tap dancing around the tax thingy, but it’ll be a minor annoyance, at most.
I like it, for what it is, which is a consumer protection and industry regulation bill. It makes some VERY important changes AND moves us a bit further in the direction of joining the rest of the civilized world in ensuring health care to everyone regardless of income.
There is so much misinformation floating around that, according to polls, many have no real idea WHAT, exactly, is IN the bill or what the effects are most likely to be (i.e. most believe it includes or will result in things which non-partisan, reliable sources conclude it will not).
Ultimately, it beats the hell out of nothing. As someone whose husband died a few years ago without insurance (he had a genetic condtion and could not GET coverage due to both cost and exclusion based on pre-existing condition, something this legislation eliminates) I learned the hard way that there is (was) NOTHING avaialble to millions of Americans.
Even for the poor (check…unless you are preganant or absolutely destitute or both, no medicaid) and those on full disability through SS(check…18 mth waiting period for health coverage through Medicare) you simply cannot get the sort of health care needed to deal with conditions like his. An ER cannot/will not provide heart valve surgery and on-going health care.
We still need National Health Care, but in the meantime, these reforms will make a huge difference in the lives of many.
I’ve never understood how the current health system helps labour flexibility, since if you or a family member has a condition, the current system effectively ties you down to your current insurance plan, and hence to one employer.
If its all about capitalism, surely the more flexible the workforce is, then the better it must be for business.
It would also aid small/medium enterprise start ups to attarct the start up talent they need so much too, and maybe it would allow some employees to think about setting up themselves.
I honestly think the republicans are somewhat shooting their philosophy in the foot, labour market movement is what capitalism is about, this is what enables the idea to work.
To untie it from employment, you need to take away the tax break companies get for offering it. McCain floated that idea and it was, to put it politely, not well received.
I don’t like it. Insurance companies are the problem, and all this does is throw more customers at them.
That being said, it’s better than any conservative’s plan I know of, which all seem to be, basically, “don’t get sick.”
I think Democrats/liberals have a hard time in this country because we’re willing to criticize the hell out of each other for things we don’t like, or think could be better. Republicans/conservatives are more likely to rally behind the leader or party, even if they don’t agree with everything on the table. I know for a fact that there were a lot of very intelligent Republicans who were embarrassed by Bush’s horrible public speaking skills, but they would never admit it in a million years. On the other hand, there are tons of Obama supporters who are openly slamming his policies. The question is whether they’ll turn out to vote for him again in 2012 despite their disagreements. Hopefully they’ll take a good, long look at the alternative before deciding.
