As someone who has lived with easily affordable universal health care for most of his life of 60 years in Canada I have to wonder what the hell were they thinking in Mass.
It seems the Republican bullshit has superceded reason down south.
Very well, why not challenge the Republicans to draft their own bill and simply let it pass. Get a start on the problem so to speak. I don’t care for compromise solutions anyway.
I’d fully expect that the Republican bill will be enormously lacking ( so were the Democrat bills) but if it passes, the shortcomings will soon be apparent and the American voter will have something to think about and give the democrats another chance to come up with real Universal Health Care.
I think the Democrats should start up a website called RepublicansKillAmericans.com and keep a running tally of all the people who die in poverty and pain because they are denied insurance coverage.
I would make it a graphic website with lots of photos of the victims. Show happy, normal Americans turning into empty shells. Show the old house, representative of the American dream and show how it had to be sold to afford one more cancer treatment that the insurance company refused to pay for.
I would also make it a very detailed website, documenting how much money went to (R)Senator So-and-So and (R)Congressman Et Cetera from insurance companies, lobbyists and the like. Have pages titled “How many Americans could (R)Senator So-and-So have saved if he wasn’t in the pocket of the insurance companies?”
I would keep another running tally of insurance company profits and how many people that money could have saved.
Pin the blame for every death squarely where it belongs until everyone who ever hears Republican automatically thinks murderer.
Under the Republican ideal you are not entitled to your right of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. And Republicans wouldn’t have it any other way. I would hammer that point home every damn day.
I think they should keep all negotiations open and on C-SPAN, as well as full text of the bill online. LIKE OBAMA PROMISED.
And not have votes in the dead of night. Or late Friday, to avoid the news cycle.
And not have to use procedural methods to gain passage.
And not try to buy off wavering senators and congressmen. And the unions.
And try to convince the public that the bill’s good and worth government takeover of 1/6 of the economy, not paint Republicans as evil or uncaring.
I swear, they way they’ve tried to ram this in as fast as possible, practically before anybody could object, it’s almost as if they absolutely knew there was something really wrong with it.
The Republicans did offer their version. It was like 4 pages and to be fair it would have covered more people than the current system and reduced the deficit. 3 million people and $68 billion in reduction. The Democratic plan covers 36 million more people and lowers the deficit by $104 billion in the same period. As someone that is living under this system, I know which I prefer. Especially since they would then say “See, reform is passed, no more is needed.”
And they did offer an amendment to the current bill. It removed all state restrictions from insurance companies and allow them to choose what particular state was their “headquarters”, much the same way so many credit card companies are “headquartered” in South Dakota because of the lower restrictions on the companies. They also defined states to include the fifty states, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Wonder how tightly regulated the insurance companies are in the Marianas. Their record on regulating manufacturers certainly sucks.
Maybe the Republicans should try a bit less bullshit and more work if they want to avoid be labeled as uncaring. Getting together to promise to always say no is not exactly being a productive member of society. They managed to pass a bill in the middle of the night in 2003, that costs the government billions every year to the pharmaceutical companies. It also increased the deficit a huge amount, not lowered it the way the current bill would do.
What do the Republicans that passed that bill say about doing so? “It was different then.” Yeah, they were in charge, so it was all right.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, the “government takeover” of the health care system. There isn’t one in the bill. There is more regulation of the private insurance companies, so they can deny less coverage and actually live up to their end of the contracts they sign. But they would still the ones you deal with and they would still make a profit. And by spreading the risk pool out over a large number of people, the costs for procedures would even go down.
Only in Republican/Fox talking points could something that has been debated on live TV for hundreds if not thousands of hours, over an 8 month period, be considered “rammed through in secret.” And before anyone could object? I have heard nothing but objections, some reasonable, most shrill and ignorant, for months. Where the hell have you been hiding?
Funny how the Republicans are the hated ones, despite so many Democrats not wanting to support the bills, either.
In any case, true universal health care isn’t a Republican-Democrat debate (the bills are, though). Smart people don’t want a Canadian, single-payer system, which thank goodness, none of the bills have. So, pretty much, there’s still a chance for health care reform, but there’s no proposal and no chance of ever having “universal” health care with the current administration.
I personally don’t hate Republicans for opposing healthcare. What I get tired of is the constant half-truths, distortions, and outright lies they use as arguments. If their reasons for opposing universal health care are so great, why do they lie about what is actually in the bill? And there are plenty of people on the left that are not happy with folks like Nelson. Then there is Lieberman. You want hate? Go see what the left is saying about him.
Smart people don’t want a Canadian style system? Better tell that to all the people that like their Medicare, since it is pretty much the same system. Then there is the population of Canada, which overwhelmingly loves their system. Are you saying that none of them are smart? And whatever your opinion of his politics, I think saying President Obama is not smart would be considered incorrect by the majority of people, and he has stated he would prefer a Canadian-style system, but it is just not possible now politically.
Of all of the health care systems I have looked at, the Canadian would probably fit best with the US. There are still private insurance companies that operate on a profit basis, but everyone receives at least a basic level of health care that enables them to be much more in control of their lives and free from worry about a basic need.
The system in the Netherlands is seems to be what we are heading for, but it is fairly new there, so it is hard to tell how it will work out. Some studies have expressed concerns about that system keeping costs down. And frankly, with the recent SC ruling on Citizens United, I have doubts about the ability of regulatory agencies here in the states to keep a lid on corporations for the next few years at least.
That was in reference to Americans. I know lots of smart Canadians, and they like their respective provincial systems, but at the same time, they just don’t know anything else. Well, actually a lot of them do know something else, because their nurses, doctors, and pharmacists (all of whom I’d assume are smart) are working in Michigan instead of Ontario, where there’s a shortage of medical professionals.
At this point, as others have mentioned elsewhere, the way to go is to ditch the big bill and start passing the components seperately. Make the Republicans go on record against each part, specifically. You’ll get most of it through, without the drama and grief of an omnibus clunker. Work from there.
No, we just have a weak military subsidized by the US, which is why we can afford health care.
I realize that has a Canadian, with a weak military, I have no place to lecture, but you forgot a third group: Canadians that have lived in the US, and thus experienced both.
Like Brock Lesnar, I have received care in the US and Canada, so I can speak with a fair bit of insight, can you say the same? Unlike Brock, Palin, and Fox News, I have no dog in this fight, I have no sponsorship deals which entice me mislead you. I don’t benefit from half-truths and misdirection.
I post this because I actually feel sorry for you. You have been lied to about your current system, and you have been lied to about the Canadian system. It is extremely hard to sit back and read/hear the bullshit that is thrown about within this debate.
Having a weak military is not the only reason Canada can afford health care. Canada spends about 1.4% of GDP on military - the US about 4.5%. In addition, the US spends 15.3% of GDP on health care - Canada spends about 10.0%. Clearly many other factors are at work and your assertion that Canada having a weak military is the cause of affordable health care cannot be true.
I have lived in Canada for 25 years, and the US for 9. I have studied this issue extensively and I think I have a lot of insight into both systems. I truly enjoy living in America - but the one and only thing here that appalls me is the utter madness of the health care system. Is it perfect in Canada - NO. But if I rated Canada health care a 7.5/10 I would have to give the US system a 1/10.
I can unequivocally state that I believe the US would benefit enormously by adapting much of Canada’s single payer system into their own. It would be very ‘smart’.
My only disclaimer would be that I don’t know much about Dutch or other European health care and cannot state whether it would ultimately be a better solution.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Splitting up the health care bill into several parts would increase the amount of time that Congress would have to devote to health reform, and there is no signs whatsoever that Republicans would be on board any particular proposals that come from Obama or the Democrats. Republicans are against any health care reform that isn’t about health savings accounts and tax cuts.
What’s more, if the issue were broken up into several pieces, it is inevitable that the result will be more messy and confusing than having a single bill.
But the main point is that splitting health reform up into many pieces would tie Congress in knots for months to come, preventing Congress from dealing with any other issue this year, whether it is the economy, cap and trade, or whatever else may be proposed in the upcoming State of the Union.
The House ought to just take the Senate passed bill, vote on it, and Democrats declare victory.
All that, plus the parts are interdependent, and if some parts were passed but others weren’t, you’d have an unworkable ‘reform.’
To review the bidding:
Everyone (except the insurance companies) wants an end to denial of coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and its cousin, recission (which is the same thing, only after the fact: you get sick, and the insurance company digs through your medical history for any excuse to dump you, including trivial pre-existing conditions that were unrelated to your illness).
But if you don’t allow insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions, then there’s no need to buy insurance until you get sick. And if only sick people are buying insurance, premiums necessarily go through the roof.
Hence the individual mandate to require that everyone buy insurance.
People don’t like this part, so this part might not pass if the bill were broken up. But without it, the bill doesn’t work.
But a lot of people just plain can’t afford insurance, or could manage it but the cost of premiums would be an onerous burden that would force them into hardship situations in other ways.
Hence the subsidies to enable lower-income people and families to afford the premiums. Without this part, you don’t get anywhere near universality, and you wind up having to pull the teeth from the ‘mandate’ part of the individual mandate. So the bill really doesn’t work without this, either.
And since wars don’t have to be financed, but health care does, there needs to be taxes and cost savings to pay for the bill. But taxes don’t do well separately, of course, and the cost savings are mostly achieved by getting rid of the subsidies to insurance companies in the Medicare Advantage program. Everyone else is good with that, but the insurance companies would fight like hell to keep their subsidies, and would probably win if it was a stand-alone issue.
And since the real long-term problem with health insurance is the fact that health care-related costs are escalating much faster than inflation, GDP, or what have you, the bill needs cost controls to reduce the long-term growth of costs. These all have a lot more enemies than friends, and only work as part of a combined bill; they’d never make it to a vote on their own. And while we may not need this part today, it’s easy to argue that this is the most important part of the bill over the long haul.
This is why, when Congresscritters talk about breaking the bill up into smaller pieces, Ezra Klein wonders if they’ve been paying any attention at all to their own debates this past year. If health care has been the main focus of this Congress since last spring, and they don’t even understand this much of the basics, one has to be very, very afraid of how little they understand about other things they vote on that they’ve spent much less time on, and have a much lower profile.
Yes. And Helen Hunt should come over to my house to give me a nice oil massage, and my wife should remain completely calm about this plan.
Both of which are more likely. [sup]*[/sup]
The thread asks what Pelosi et al should do. Pelosi has one vote to cast. She has already tried to rally support for passing the Senate bill unchanged and come up short. She simply can’t muster enough votes together to do it. This is because, in the wake of the Massachusetts senatorial surprise, on the heels of the falling poll numbers and the Virginia and New Jersey races last fall, many of the Reps believe it’s too politically risky to vote for that package.
So any answer needs to address that reality, or it becomes an “I want a pony, too,” sort of meaningless exercise.
Tell Helen I’ll be waiting.
[sup]*[/sup]OK, technically not more likely. Technically much less likely. But since both are in the realm of “very unlikely” and I like to think about Helen Hunt and oil, I’m leaving it in.
There are many places with socialized health care whose militaries are subsidized by no one. What need does Canada have for a powerful military anyway? They are signatories to NATO, and have no particular lust for invading other sovereign nations, so what use is it to them?
It’s been a year. It’s not being rammed through too fast, it’s being slowed down by the Republicans. The Republicans are also, in addition to using procedural methods to slow the bill, outright lying about it to change public opinion. They are lying to create a public perception that the bill is something that it is not.
The fact is Republicans aren’t thinking on this one. They are opposing on purely ideological ground. Their leadership has decided that anyone that sides with the Democrats will face primary challenges and get no RNC money come election time. They don’t want it to pass and they are willing to act in a plainly evil way to oppose it. This means that you need every Democrat. Which means that back-room deals need to be done.
