Despite clear progress, media declare health care reform nearing "life support"
SUMMARY: Despite passage of health care reform bills in House and Senate committees and the endorsement by major medical organizations of congressional Democrats' reform efforts, numerous television pundits have suggested that President Obama's health care plan is in serious jeopardy.
As The Washington Post observed in a July 20 article: "Cable news programs repeatedly declare the president's health care program is teetering or embattled despite a week in which [President] Obama's proposals were endorsed by the doctor and nurses associations and committees in both legislative chambers passed major bills." Indeed, despite passage of health care reform bills by the House Ways and Means Committee, House Education and Labor Committee, and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and endorsements of congressional Democrats' reform efforts by the American Medical Association and American Nurses Association, numerous television pundits have suggested in recent days that Obama's health care plan is in serious jeopardy.
For instance:
- On the July 19 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory stated: "Sunday: it's do or die for the president's massive health care reform." Later, Gregory asked Newsweek senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe, "[T]ake this on. I mean, the conventional wisdom here is that he's on the ropes here on health care. Is that overstated?" Wolffe replied, "No, I think it's a challenge. And the longer it goes on ... delay has always killed health care. So the longer this delays, the worse [Obama's] authority gets."
- On the July 19 edition of CNN Newsroom, host Don Lemon asked: "[I]s President Barack Obama's health care plan dead in the water?"
- On the July 19 edition of CNN's State of the Union, host John King, referring to July 16 testimony by Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf, said that "the Obama health care plan hits an enormous speed bump." Later, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin asserted of health care reform, "the White House is feeling really nervous right now. I mean, they know that this thing is a mess."
- On the July 19 edition of CNN Sunday Morning, CNN senior White House correspondent Ed Henry said that Obama's "abrupt" decision to give a speech on health care on July 17 raises "questions about whether his health care push may be unraveling."
- On the July 18 edition of Fox News Watch, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon said: "I think in recent days the press is coming around to the mounting evidence that this bill is in trouble."
- On the July 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN correspondent Dana Bash said that the president is "trying to change a rapidly spreading story line that his health care plan is in trouble."
- During the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer said that Obama was making "a Hail Mary pass on health care. ... He's scrambling to keep his hopes for an overhaul alive as concerns about costs rise." Also during that segment, CNN Correspondent Dan Lothian said that Obama's speech on health care that day was "perhaps ... in response to some of the growing concerns that this health care reform ship up on Capitol Hill is sinking." Later, Bash said that "in the last 24 hours, the perception is that health care is in trouble. So the president is going to try to turn that perception around."
- During the 6 p.m. ET hour of the July 17 edition of The Situation Room, Blitzer stated: "President Obama stepping up his efforts to fight for reform. But is his plan in serious peril?" Blitzer later added, "Each blip of criticism pushes the chances for health care reform further toward life support. Right now, the president is desperate to keep his plans alive. But could health care reform be facing serious peril?"
- On the July 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report, when asked by host Bret Baier whether he agrees with Fortune Washington editor Nina Easton that there's a "good chance" Democrats will be able to pass health care reform 'through the skin of their teeth," Fox News contributor and NPR correspondent Juan Williams replied, "at the moment, no, people on the Hill are saying to me, especially in the Senate, it doesn't look good."
From the July 19 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
GREGORY: This Sunday, it's do or die for the president's massive health care reform.
OBAMA [video clip]: We have finally reached the point where inaction is no longer an option; where the choice to defer reform is nothing more than a decision to defend the status quo. And I will not defend the status quo.
GREGORY: But the toughest obstacles remain over taxes, coverage and overall cost. Will the president's August deadline be met, and what will the final bills look like? With us, the administration's point person on health care, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Then, the view from the Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell. Will health care reform be bipartisan? And why is he preparing to vote against the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court?
[...]
GREGORY: Richard Wolffe, take this on. I mean, the conventional wisdom here is that he's on the ropes here on health care. Is that overstated?
WOLFFE: No, I think it's a challenge. And the longer it goes on -- [Wall Street Journal editorial page editor] Paul [Gigot] is right, not about the polls, but about delay has always killed health care. So the longer this delays, the worse his authority gets. But he is going to try and step this up now.
From the July 19 edition of CNN Newsroom:
CEMETERY LAWYER: There was not a situation where bones simply littered the cemetery.
LEMON: But police investigators just aren't buying it. Plus, is President Barack Obama's health care plan dead in the water? His big push could dominate the news this week.
From the July 19 edition of CNN's State of the Union with John King:
KING: I'm John King. This is State of the Union. The unemployment rate keeps climbing, despite the president's bold stimulus promise.
OBAMA [video clip]: We intend to help save or create 2.5 million jobs.
KING: And the Obama health care plan hits an enormous speed bump.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): The bill will actually increase cost in our health care system.
[...]
YELLIN: And the White House -- yes, the White House is feeling really nervous right now. I mean, they know that this thing is a mess. And the president doesn't want to commit to any one of these plans yet because he wants it to -- get it worked out through Congress. But there's a lot of frustration that he's not showing enough leadership by laying down markers and giving in.
From the July 19 edition of CNN Sunday Morning:
BETTY NGUYEN (anchor): Well, Republicans and some Democrats in Washington are expressing concerns over whether health care reform can actually happen. But President Obama wants health care reform legislation passed this year. And as White House correspondent Ed Henry reports, the president plans to turn up the pressure on Congress.
HENRY [voiceover]: An abrupt add to the president's schedule late on a Friday, raising questions about whether his health care push may be unraveling. But Mr. Obama insisted otherwise.
From the July 18 edition of Fox News Watch:
SCOTT: Bill, should we be writing these promises down so that if, in fact, this thing gets passed, we can all say, "Hey, the president told me I could keep my health care if I like it"?
SAMMON: Absolutely. You know, I think the press, by and large, supports this measure and is sympathetic to the president.
SCOTT: Does the press know what this measure is?
SAMMON: Well, I was just going to say, in fairness, I think in recent days the press is coming around to the mounting evidence that this bill is in trouble, and I think as much as the press would like to see it pass, they also can't resist a good story where Democrats are fighting among themselves over how to pay for this, the deficit is quadrupling, you know, the clock is ticking before the August recess. And so I think the journalists are starting to cover this as a legit -- in a good way.
From the July 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
BASH [voiceover]: Damage control in the form of a pep talk.
OBAMA: I wanted everybody to just step back for a moment and look at the unprecedented progress that we've already made on reform.
BASH: The president trying to change a rapidly spreading story line that his health care plan is in trouble.
From the July 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Plus, a Hail Mary pass on health care. We're standing by to hear live this hour from President Obama. He's scrambling to keep his hopes for an overhaul alive as concerns about costs rise.
[...]
LOTHIAN: But again, just to give you a little sense of the -- what's been going on behind the scenes here, initially the president was not scheduled to make any remarks -- public remarks today. He was just doing a lot of sort of lobbying and behind-the-scenes negotiations on health care here at the White House, but there was nothing on his schedule at all until late this afternoon, when we got word -- after many rumors that were circulating around -- we got word that indeed the president would be coming out at 3:15 and making some remarks on health care, perhaps in a reaction -- a response to some of the growing concerns that this health care reform ship up on Capitol Hill is sinking.
[...]
BASH: So, what I'm told by congressional sources here -- Democratic sources -- is that the reason the president is coming out is to try to give a pep talk. And he's probably going to say in some variation, maybe multiple times, there is momentum, there is progress.
You know, as you well know, with a lot of these things, a lot of these issues, it's about perception. And right now, in the last 24 hours, the perception is that health care is in trouble. So the president is going to try to turn that perception around, and that is with the prodding, and, frankly, some pleading by Democratic leaders here in Congress.
[...]
BLITZER: You're in The Situation Room. Happening now: health care push. President Obama stepping up his efforts to fight for reform. But is his plan in serious peril?
[...]
BLITZER: Each blip of criticism pushes the chances for health care reform further toward life support. Right now, the president is desperate to keep his plans alive. But could health care reform be facing serious peril? There are pointed criticisms from Republicans -- even pleadings from some Democrats.
From the July 17 of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
EASTON: But I do think that they will probably squeeze this through both houses, get it into conference and go from there. Just like cap-and-trade; they just squeezed it through the House. And I think there's a good chance they'll just be able to, like -- through the skin of their teeth. It's not going to be bipartisan or broad support, but I think they'll --
BAIER: Do you agree?
WILLIAMS: I would have agreed, you know, and I think that the American people still want something to happen. But at the moment, no, people on the Hill are saying to me, especially in the Senate, it doesn't look good.
BAIER: Steve?
STEPHEN HAYES (Weekly Standard senior writer): Yeah, I think they're in trouble. The president said, don't slow down. Well, that's what we heard before the stimulus package. I think people are rightly curious and skeptical of that argument.
While they praise Cronkite they refuse to do any inward reflection and see what is so wrong about the media today.
Instead they crave access, drama and conventional wisdom that reality is just something that gets in the way.
But, I can tell you that this is why Obama's numbers have dipped a bit and that is also a reason for the staged drama
Healthcare is a right. Driving is a privilege.
It's okay to spend money if you get something back. Bush's money went to nothing (war, tax cuts). I know it sounds silly now, but back in those days, people actually thought that tax cuts for the rich led to better economies.
Protecting our country is not a waste of money. Everyone agrees (I think) that the Iraq war was not executed correctly...but the $951 billion spent since 2001 on Iraq and Afghanistan PALE in comparison to the $23 TRILLION (according to a US watchdog over the bailouts) in 1 year with Obama.
First off, the top tax rate under President Ronald Reagan was 70% when he took office. In fact, if you go to irs.gov, you will see that the top tax rate was 70% or MORE all the way back to 1932, where it changed significantly for the worse under FDR. But, during President Reagans 8 years in office, the top tax rates, and the number of tax brackets, reduced from 70%, to 50%, to 38%, to 28%. It doesn't take a genius to know that the federal government could not change in one year from 70% to 28%. It took time. But, he accomplished it. And, the country benefited.
As for the tax cuts for 95% that Obama promised during his campaign, he directly referred to the tax credit (of approx $250) for each household. But, the Tax Policy Center stated that only 75% of households would benefit (see reduction), and the CBO stated AND classified the credits as direct spending (i.e. WELFARE), and not a tax reduction.
On top of that, Obama has disguised plenty of "taxes" with cap-and-trade. Even at its best estimate, every household will see an increase that offsets the $250 tax credit.
As for the Iraq war nonsense you spout, this discussion thread is not about the reason for the wars. I was merely stating the costs associated, and contrasting to the estimated costs of financial bailouts.
It seems to me that our economy was strongest from 1940 to the mid '80s, and the envy of the world. Maybe we should go back to taxing the rich. We could certainly use the money.
I'm perfectly aware that conservatives say, "But doing that will drive jobs overseas!" This fails to take into account that these jobs are already gone, under President Reagan, for one. Otherwise why is almost everything I buy stamped either 'Made in China' or 'Made in Mexico'?
That's crap. Progressive taxing penalizes the successful, and rewards the lazy. Stop being lazy.
As for the economy...do a little research. Look up "annualized gdp" on google, and tell me when the economy was strongest.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
This is stupidity and brainwashing. As your income goes up the percentage of what you make that is disposable goes up.
"Here is my principle:
Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay.
That is the only American principle." FDR
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR
We get that you selfish Ebenezer Scrooge worshippers care NOTHING about society and really only care about YOUR bank account. Excuse us if we disagree
I am not selfish. That is how liberals and progressives attack the argument. I am for personal responsibility, and taking care of your family and community through action. If I CHOOSE to give, I will. If I choose not to, I should not be forced by you or anyone.
If you look at it from that perspective, it is you who are selfish. You want to take from others so you do not have to do as much.
Maybe when you graduate, you will understand.
Did he do a poor job, YEP! Should he have the money he was contractually allotted taken away because you don't think he "earned it"...NO. What if people didn't think you did well at whatever you do...say, study. Should they be able to take your property?
As for largest budget deficits, you must be smoking crack. The late 20's, entire 40's and part of the 50's saw significantly more...not to mention our current administration absolutely blowing away everyone. Plus, Reagan did it while coming out of the Jimmy Carter years...
Cutting taxes gives more people and businesses money. The government should only collect taxes for a very limited set of tasks, as outlined by the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Just because you make a baseless assertion and regurgitate one of your delusions and then say period doesnt mean it magically becomes true
Now go kill a sheep at your Reagan shrine.
Who started the bank bailouts in the first place?
And you know who started this round of bailouts...President George W Bush. This is not a partisan debate. There are progressive Republicans just as there are progressive Dems. President Bush was very bad on fiscal policy. Most conservatives will readily admit that.
Yesterday, TARP Inspector General Neil Barosky released a report which crudely tallied up the cost of every economic rescue program proposed during the current crisis — including those that have been discontinued or never even began — to state that the total scope of all financial rescue programs comes to about $23.7 trillion. Cable news hosts ran wild with the report, using it to claim that taxpayers will “ultimately” wind up paying $23 trillion in “bailouts.”
The number continued to be cited on cable last night and this morning, with Fox News even claiming that $23 trillion will be the final cost of TARP alone. But Barofsky himself appeared on CNN to explain that the actual outstanding amount for the financial rescues is closer to $3 trillion, including loans that have yet to be repaid.
Yesterday, TARP Inspector General Neil Barosky released a report which crudely tallied up the cost of every economic rescue program proposed during the current crisis — including those that have been discontinued or never even began — to state that the total scope of all financial rescue programs comes to about $23.7 trillion. Cable news hosts ran wild with the report, using it to claim that taxpayers will “ultimately” wind up paying $23 trillion in “bailouts.”
The number continued to be cited on cable last night and this morning, with Fox News even claiming that $23 trillion will be the final cost of TARP alone. But Barofsky himself appeared on CNN to explain that the actual outstanding amount for the financial rescues is closer to $3 trillion, including loans that have yet to be repaid.
Tax cuts lead to recessions and massive inequality. Period. Save your con man Republicant boiler plate tripe, it only feeds the greater expansion of income inequality in this country. Do you really think it's right that people work upwards of fifty hours a week for minimum wage only to be left with nothing when the bills come due? Talk about punishing hard work! They are the people who deserve healthcare the most, they keep our country afloat with their grit and determination to never give up no matter how desperate their situation.
No, you are wrong in your materialistic, me, me, me mentality. The rich have an obligation to the Federal government (whose banks, legal system and military) protects their assets and the rich have a responsibility to society upon which they built their empire.
I did not have money when I was young. I worked hard in a public school, got through college, and am succeeding. I could have chosen to work at McDonalds...but knew that I would not have money if I did so...
How does hard work and saving money make me materialistic? I didn't have things growing up...my mommy didn't pay for my birkenstocks and dope while I attended college...I worked my butt off, and expect others to do the same.
And no, just because someone CHOOSES to work for minimum wage does not mean they DESERVE anything! And the sure as heck don't have the right to impose their will on fellow citizens.
You're a little slow on the uptake here.
What does this have to do with the thread? We are discussing healthcare, and whether or not Obama's plan is good for our country.
This is regarding your assertion that people choose to work for minimum wage, and somehow this makes their concerns irrelevant. If you actually take a few steps outside your front door, you might discover something called "real life" out there. People need to work. There may be some people who choose minimum wage, but as a generalization the notion is flat-out insane. When you have a hundred good jobs open in your area with a thousand people looking for work, most of those people aren't "choosing" to take a lesser job. When companies are cutting hours and benefits and workers are forced to take second and third jobs to make ends meet, that's not a "choice".
This is also similar to the question later in the thread that you didn't want to answer. You can't possibly believe that everyone could afford healthcare if they really tried or not. It's a conservative fantasy. No matter how much of an effort everyone makes, there will always be people at the bottom. That's how capitalism works. Those people will not be able to afford healthcare. Blaming those people as a whole for the fact that the bottom rung of the ladder exists is beyond idiotic.
Is it coming into focus now?
Companies do cut jobs and wages. They are making a choice. People can choose to move to another job. Will there always be open jobs? Yes. Even though unemployment is up right now, it is also very regional. Some areas have high rates, while others are looking for workers.
What about those jobs President Bush said Americans won't do? I'm thinking that if I were unemployed, there is no job I wouldn't do.
Do I personally think that everyone could afford healthcare if they wanted to? No. Not in the current system. Government needs to get out of the way, lawyers need to stop predatory practices, and people need to get back to the basics. Pay for medical care with your own income, use insurance for catastrophic events. Same as car insurance.
Even with that, there will be some circumstances that people will hit. That's where charity, churches, and community come in. Then, and only then, should they fall to the saftey net of Medicaid and other welfare platforms.
We need to care about people enough to really make a difference. Communism does not achieve that. Socialism does not achieve that. They only work to bring everyone DOWN to the least common denominator. We should work to bring everyone UP by providing opportunities through capitalism and generousity.
If you recognize that not everyone can afford healthcare, then your argument about people working and getting healthcare is obviously sunk. It's not possible. So at one point you say "YOU have to earn those things" and then it's "Then, and only then, should they fall to the saftey net of Medicaid and other welfare platforms." Obviously you don't have to earn those things, if the social safety net is there. And that's my point, that you can't deny people help and protection because they can't afford it, because there will always be people who can't afford it no matter how hard they try.
The garbage about socialism and communism is exactly that. Nobody's talking about that. The idea here is that in a capitalistic system, you inherently have rich people and poor people. Because that's inherent to the system, the rich should have an obligation to try to minimize the disparity as much as possible. That's fair and just, and healthcare is clearly a relevant part of that concept.
I've never understood how a conservative could be so damn condescending to people who work for a living. Especially knowing that their policies have set up a political system that grants disproportionate political voice to those who can afford lobbyists and allow them to write tax laws and labor laws that have produced the greatest economic inequality in our country since Hoover.
You punks busted the only friend a working class person ever had, you busted the unions and along with it the core family value of living wages.
But whatever. Say what you want and try to help the oligarchs retain their hold on our democracy. I will do everything I can to promote a more just and equal society.
This country was founded on the rights of the individual. We are not a collective. There are other countries that are socialist or communist. This is not one of them. NOR WILL IT EVER BE.
The unions are concerned with only one thing...keeping themselves in power. I agree with the lobbyist comment completely. It not a conservative issue, nor is it a progressive issue...its BOTH. You are a fool if you believe that conservatives setup this system you reference...it was both.
But you knew that, didn't you...
You are reaching in an effort to win the argument at the cost of looking like a fool. You have succeeded.
Nope. Your Unions choked the golden goose until she couldn't lay one more egg. Union's take and take and they NEVER give. They killed the auto industry and they're on their way to killing the airline industry. What are US schools ranked? Teachers unions anyone...
Unions have been busted by letting big business write the labor laws; they have been busted by profitable companies leaving the country in search of cheap labor abroad; and they've been busted by people like you who think the sweat of one's labor is a non-contribution to the success of a company.
Kiss my a__, Tbonelicker.
You stay classy Round!
You gave a lame example of unions voting. That is true. The vote to take and take and take and rarely give.
Unions choking the goose...till she's dead
That link will paint a better picture. Unions had their day. That day is gone.
You are another one of these idiots who thinks that workers are exploited because they deserve it, and if kids go to bed hungry well gosh darn it, why don't they start gardens in their back yards. You probably think that kids became spoiled when all the chimney sweep jobs disappeared. And you clearly don't give a damn about the society you live in, since you worship at the altar of I've Got Mine To Hell With Everyone Else.
You are going to be very bitter and disappointed with the way the US is changing. Get back to work on that time machine to take yourself back to 1880, so you can get a sexual rush out of seeing cops beat lazy, shiftless striking workers on behest of the government and the corporations (one and the same.)
Total health expenditures per capita, 2003
United States $5711
Australia $2886
Austria $2958
Belgium $3044
Canada $2998
Denmark $2743
Finland $2104
France $3048
Germany $2983
Iceland $3159
Ireland $2466
Italy $2314
Japan $2249
Luxembourg $4611
Netherlands $2909
Norway $3769
Sweden $2745
Switzerland $3847
United Kingdom $2317
Thats right, all these countries cover everyone while paying half the price! And while I wont write an essay for you, trust me, the high cost has nothing to do with better quality care; our system certainly doesn't have better outcomes. This is pure waste that benefits only monopolistic insurance companies.
If we effectively reform healthcare, while government will certainly be paying more, the cost for the economy as a whole will go down. When it comes to cost doing nothing is far more expensive for the economy, as health care costs continue to rise as fast as wages
putting individuals businesses at a disadvantage when having to pay the increasingly high premiums.
You think you are defending the free market, but what you are really supporting is racket that is often aided by stupid government policies. Just because you want insurance companies to get as much profit as possible doesn't mean you're defending free enterprise, you're just doing what insurance companies want you to do.
Correction from last post: as health care cost rise three times as fast as premiums.
(sorry 'bout the add-on post folks, I accidently clicked save before I was finished with my post)
That's not what the Doug Elmendorf said on July 17, in his letter to Charlie Rangel. The CBO said costs will go up. It's on the CBO website.
Mayo Clinic says costs too high
Keep yelling from the rooftops roundhouse. Someone may listen to you, it just wont be anyone who works or makes policy in the health care industry.
Oh, did you see the latest polls? Support is below 50% now. Barry didn't do much to stem the tide tonight either. He looked a tad shaky but soon got his feet under him with a white house joke...
Well done, corporatist pig!
Don't get me wrong. I blame Democrats for not laying out the story of heroes, villains and the moral imperative to make guaranteed healthcare a reality.
Read that real slow RH. The Mayo Clinic spells it out for you and Barry. Will you listen? Barry gave some hints last night that he isn't locked in to the August deadline, so that's a start.
I've already stated that this health care bill will require increased govt. spending, but that extra spending will be well worth it if we can address some of the more insane aspects of our healthcare system. Firt of all, the bill has a public insurance option which will provide much needed competition for the monopolistic insurance kings, finally giving them some incentive to control costs.
And it will go a long way towards addressing the problem of people who, because they cant afford insurance, cannot get treatment for an illness until they are forced to the emergency room, where they receive a much costlier treatment and are bankrupted for the pleasure, if they survive. That particular strain on our system will be all but eliminated if this bill is enacted.
The bill provides mandates to keep people from gaming the system, and it has a much-need provision forbidding insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
While it is not perfect, if the bill does what it seems like it will, it will give Americans a taste of whats its like not to be plundered by their insurers, and it will probably lead to further action in the future.
On the other hand what you're suggesting is not actually frugal; you're suggesting we accept the status quo in which healthcare costs continue to consume more of our economy. Already, the majority of bankruptcies in this country are directly related to health care bills. If we allow health care premiums to rise 3 times faster than wages, I can assure that this will get worse fast.
If the govt. does something cheaper and more effectively than private institutions, then increasing taxes in order to do it is not a problem for the economy. And yes, with healthcare reform, people will be paying more in taxes, but this will be more than offset by lower premiums. The net effect is more money for the larger economy. It is unfortunate that some are so blinded by ideology that they cannot understand this simple concept.
Furthermore, read the letter again and you'll find that most of the increase in deficit from the bill has accounted for by budget adjustments elsewhere, and there are surely more to come. Furthermore, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio remains (Gasp!) relatively low compared to most countries.
Go ahead and keep playing dumb to all this and yell "health care will raise the deficit by a trillion!" till you turn blue. I really don't care.
Hopefully by taxing the super rich. And why not? Wealth is not merely a reward unto itself, it comes with duties and responsibilities to the society that enabled the individual to prosper. It's about the upper 1 or 2% taking some personal responsibility for their country. Unless of course personal responsibility is just a phrase rich people use when they want to evade the subject of duty and honor.
"You can't afford health insurance premiums AND a Hummer."
Thus, it is easy to understand that the US government can't afford to provide all its citizens with adequate health care, AND give away/guarantee obscene profits for giant private insurers and pharma companies.
The Republicans and the conservatives have always been against the last two. They have now declared war on the third -- and given up their por-life stand by saying (sorry Ron Paul -- we almost were rooting for you) that healthcare is a service not a right. Basically, in the womb you have every right to life and you have no right to your life once out of the womb.
All hail the GOP the party of hypocrisy.
When I mull it over, it keeps boiling down to cost. How much is a human life worth? It's not a question I'm prepared to answer or qualified to answer (if there is an answer).
Government, I'd say, does have a vested interest in keeping its population healthy and working for the purpose of generating tax revenue.
(the conspiracy theorist in me has visions of The Matrix if Health Care is done poorly... Let's hope we get it worked out.)
Not good enough. Explain how freeing people from the shackles of the high cost of health care will enslave anybody? Explain how, in the history of our country, how expanding more rights, expanding life opportunities, granting greater liberty and making the pursuit of happiness attainable has limited the rest of us in our pursuits?
Explain yourself.
Under any plan, health care will not be free. Granted, it may be free to some who use the services, but there are still doctors, nurses, facilities, drugs, etc, that will have to be paid for, not to mention the new federal jobs a government health care plan would create.
My thought is that the most likely consumers of the government health care would be those who cannot, for whatever reason, afford health care currently. In my RWNJ mind, that translates to lower tax bracket and someone who would be consuming more than they contribute. (...stay with me...)
With that being said, in order to sustain the government health care system, other individuals would have to contribute more than they consume. Those who have to bear the additional cost will have less at their disposal to exercise Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
...but i could be wrong...
If the coverage is comparable to my current plan and half the cost, I'd probably switch - be a fool not to.
The key to any public health plan will be to get healthy people to sign up. If that happens, then there may be a way to sustain a public option.
Thanks for the opportunity to show you what I'm thinking on the subject, and I look forward to hearing back.
Why does that not happen now? You think that people who get hundreds of thousands of dollars in catastrophic care are getting only their own money back, or what? Obviously the whole idea is that most people will contribute more than they consume.
Fine. I have no problem paying for the kids of other people (I have none) to go to public school. And I have no problem helping pay for Universal Health Care, either- heck, that will benefit me directly. Every time the government does something, it costs money. Money must come through taxes. Taxes mean people have less money to spend themselves. But people don't live on little islands- they live in a SOCIETY that benefits when we ALL PITCH IN. My life is better because kids get an education, and we'll all be better off when health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for people who can afford it.
And I agree that having a healthy society is better than having people who are out of work for medical reasons that can be remedied. More people available to pitch in.
It needs to be done correctly, though. There are enough other countries with public health care that we should be able to take the best aspects of their models and create a system that would be the best public health care in the world. The underlying issue for me is that this could be another bureaucracy laden with inefficiency which would waste tax dollars instead of helping people, causing an unnecessarily high burden on those who have to pick up the tab.
Do you think that pushing this bill through so quickly is the best way to go? I know it needs to get done, but getting it done properly is better than getting it done fast.
Liberty means that we the people are individuals, free to make our own choices. Progressives have been eating away at these rights since Woodrow Wilson.
The Republican party does indeed contain hypocrites. As does the Democratic. But, that is very different from the conservatives.
If I choose happiness is living in a hut, then that is my choice. I will have no money. I will not provide healthcare to others, nor should I be afforded any services. I have made a choice.
I hate to break it to you, but you do need to learn history, my friend. The founders had originally stated the rights as "life, liberty, and property", but changed it to pursuit of happiness to PREVENT southern slave owners from declaring slaves as property, therefore constitutionaly protected. These same southern slave owners were the foundation of the Democratic party. The founders were STRONGLY divided on this point, and the 3/5ths was a compromise to help bring together the union.
I am saying that healthcare is not a right. The right to life does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you. YOU have to earn those things. Rights cannot infringe upon the rights of others. You cannot have a right that makes someone give you something. You can choose to earn a living, and pay for medical care, or not.
Do not confuse charity in this mix. If I choose to support a charity that helps people with known disadvantages pay for healthcare, then that is MY right. I choose that. And that works.
How about tort reform to lower the impact of lawsuits, thereby lowering the costs of insurance, thereby lowering medical expenses? How about allowing insurance companies to cross state lines? Why does the answer have to be federal healthcare?
Get out of the way, you contribute nothing to the discussion.
You're also ignoring Solon's point. The Constitution provides for taxes to be collected for the general welfare. That precludes any discussion about infringing on anyone else's rights. You don't have a right to avoid paying taxes for the public good anymore than I have a right to avoid paying taxes for increased defense spending.
And no, I never advocated not paying taxes.
I was addressing your point about "rights". If the government uses taxes to pay for healthcare, then you are arguing that's an infringement on your rights. "You don't have the right to avoid paying taxes for the public good..."
Apparently your mind skipped over this question, for some odd reason. Want to take a shot at it?
The health of our nation is critical to our economic security and broad prosperity. But your argument is ridiculous considering that my driving on the highway is just as much an individual benefit as it is a benefit to the country as a whole. A strong military is an individual benefit to my personal security.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking here?
Not sure why you reference you driving...maybe because you think that is an infrastructure benefit. But, roads are locally controlled, state maintained. Only the federal interstate system, designed for national defense, is maintained by the federal government.
The last statement is quite a stretch...but I think you should read the constitution. The military is to protect the countries sovereignty, not your person.
I believe it is your thinking that is flawed. The federal government is not a nanny. We the people are not a collective, we are individuals.
But. Since you're being ridiculous, I'll follow suit. Sure why not socialize food? Agri-giants are subsidized by our tax dollars anyway, so we might as well get something in return for our money.
Rights infringe on other rights all the time. My right to own property infringes on other peoples right to go wherever they want. A mans right to own a gun infringes on other peoples right to keep their property when the first guy robs him. The right to assembly of a few thousand protesters infringes on anothers right to use the park we assemble IN. Your view as usual comes from a simplemindedness that is simply astonishing.
Your simpleminded Randian libertarianism would doom us to no society at ALL. If you and all your libertarian friends went to a tropical Island and set up your Randian utopia you would re-enact the lord of the flies.
I have never said it is unconstitutional to provide healthcare. I simply said it is not a right. You've put words into my argument in an effort to win.
And...we are not a democracy. We are a republic.
Your right to own property is protected. But...no one has the right to go wherever they want. You made that up. And the gun argument is just plain stupid. Gun ownership is a right, but not robbery. That is against the law. You do not have a right to go to a park...It is you, my friend, who are VERY simpleminded and easily refuted. Your rights are limited, specific, and enumerated.
What the hell are you talking about? If you're going to say that the obligation on others CANNOT be done, then you're talking about a violation of rights. Where would those rights be established, if not in the Constitution?
It cannot be a right. It is unconstitutional to impose obligations on others. The rights defined within the Constitution are individual rights.
Again, individual rights are defined within the Constitution, starting with the Bill of Rights. They are finite, enumerated, and limited. They do NOT include healthcare. They will not include healthcare.
What part are you having trouble with?
Aren't you saying that collecting taxes to pay for the healthcare of others is an obligation, and that is unconstitutional since you can't have a right that violates someone else's rights?
Someone earlier stated that healthcare is a right. I simply stated that it is not a right, nor can it be a right. That's all.
Collecting taxes to pay for healthcare is perfectly legal. Its not a right...and its not a good decision...and its socialism...but it would follow the Constitution that allows the legislature to enact laws.
Its just not a right.
Back to the original point of this thread...Americans are starting to pay attention and realize how bad this healthcare plan is.
Has anyone on this thread read it?
Did you know:
[list]
The proposed plan has a provision that no new private insurance policies can be created
[list]
The plan states that Americans over a certain age must attend "counseling" on alternatives to extended medical care, including hospice, every 5 years, and every year if diagnosed with a serious illness
An ammendment to the plan was rejected outright by Dems that would have stated that the federal government cannot impose medical restrictions on doctors
These are really bad things!! Read this, and you will see for yourself. I'm only 1/3 of the way through it. The language is very difficult.
This is not a thread on racial issues, and therefore will only state this briefly...the genesis of the union was delicate, with southern slave owners demanding slaves be property, while northern (future REPUBLICANS) believe every human was equal. The compromise was 3/5ths, which allowed for a future Republican, Lincoln, to create the emancipation proclamation, and prevented the slave owners from claiming constitutional rights of property.
You really need to take time to read the post, then do your own followup on the content.
Plus, not sure what your point was on "moral BS". I was simply stating that some rights are based on morality, and others are enumerated specifically in the constitution. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not in the constitution. The rights you do have as an American are listed specifically in the constitution. I can assure you with absolute confidence that healthcare is not listed.
As for Wilson -- and I was born in Staunton, VA -- a progressive? In some areas possibly but the use of the Alien and Sedition Act as his adminstration did. Hell, the governement tracking of individuals, groups, and publications were the groundwork for the Red Scare witch hunts and the Patriot Act -- hardly progressive ideas.
Oh, I give you the Democratic Party its hyprocrites -- I have no love lost for the Blue Dog democrats and their position in the health care battle. But don't act like this isn't conservative hypocrisy to preach life at its beginning and seemingly being quite willing to drop this standard the moment a breath is drawn. Buyers remorse is not a valid position in this discussion -- you buy into the "conservative" side of the argument you must carry it through to its logical conclusion or you are just a person telling another person what to do with their body. That's not pro-anything other than your own mortality, politics, or economic theory.
And while we are at it do you really want to roll on who has more readily damaged personal rights the right or the left. Anytime you want that debate you jump and start with the 2nd Amendment.
and this LINK
and this LINK
and um.... this LINK
Seriously...the fact remains that this country has a constitution which does NOT include universal healthcare. That's the debate.
Plus, the proposed plan does not pay for itself. The $1.5 trillion cost for 10 years is only 1/3 covered by a tax hike on the rich. Why should I pay for others healthcare, plus put future generations in a debt that can never be paid?
While it is true that the actual words "the government must provide universal health care"
The Constitution does however, clearly state that the government MUST provide for the common good of the people.
Which any caring and decent person would interpret as providing the ability to LIFE! As in... the Declaration of Independence being written in such a way that not only are all men created equal... but have the inalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!
I'm willing to bet that you think the 2nd amendment actually does state that you are able own machine guns and other various automatic weapons. Which it does not, but that is assumed... right?
Well, the same can be said about what "to provide for the common good" too!
Can't have it both ways pal!
forgot the last part, should have said --->
While it is true that the actual words "the government must provide universal health care" are not written in the Constitution...
I have a question, though: -If- a public option, administered by the federal government, succeeded in bringing down your premiums on a monthly basis without adding to your tax burden (assuming you earn less that $250,000/year) would your feelings change?
And for the "spendiest" president record, Obama has only been in office for 6 months. I think he's well on pace to beat Bush. And I'm not happy about defending Bush, because his crappy domestic policy is why Obama and the spendocrats are in a position to force this terrible healthcare bill down our throats. And of course the reason they have to shove it down out throats instead of taking the time to make sure it's a good bill is because Obama's popularity is slipping and if it doesn't get done now, it might not ever.
The first two are from CommonDream.org. There catch phrase is ...."for the greater good." Not exactly an unbiased bunch over there at Common Dreams, so maybe there is a credibility issue. The articles gave a few numbers but provided no source, so how do I know they just weren't from thin air.
There were LOTS for statements of opinion like " Most patients who come from Canada to the US...." Did you interview most of them so you could make that statement for them?
Plenty of misleading statements. One for instance regarding denial of treatment for patients. It used getting an MRI as an example, stating that in Canada if you really need an MRI then you get one and that in the US if your HMO says no then you don't. Well you might get one in Canada, it might take a few months of that undiagnosed cancer growing out of control, but you'll get one. On the other hand, I work in a diagnostic clinic. Not one patient that really needed an MRI and was initially turned down didn't get their exam. It's usually a bad diagnosis code, that once changed corrects the issue. Oh yeah, and they get it within a week or so, sometimes the same day.
The other links were just as bogus. I mean Howard Dean? Really? That's the best you can do.
While I certainly believe that healthcare does need reform, I don't think this is it. Why are we rushing it? Why don't we take the time need to make sure the final outcome is the best outcome? Something is better than nothing is not good enough. Do any of you really think the federal government is going to be able to efficiently run healthcare? Have you been to the DMV? Medicare is practically bankrupt. Have you seen the VA healthcare system? I could go on and on about government inefficiency. I can't remember the exact source of the data bacause I wrote the paper 15 yrs ago while in college, but the study data showed that is takes $1.50 spent by the government to be as effective as $1 in the private sector. It's because of the giant bureaucracy. And it won't get better because Obama is president.
•Allow consumers to purchase health insurance companies across state lines.
•Widen the availability of medical savings accounts.
•Allow consumers to deduct the cost of insurance from their taxable income.
•Allow doctors, nurses and medical suppliers to take a credit against any income taxes due for the market value of services provided free to those living at or below the poverty level.
I thought you weren't in favor of "Socialist" healthcare. Allowing the customers to own the company sounds like (gasp!) COMMUNISM to me. Maybe you really didn't understand what you obviously copied-and-pasted from some other site instead of using your own words, which usually consist of variations on "Duh!"
But someone needs to write a similar article on the biased coverage from the New York Times and especially the Washington Post. Almost all of the recent "reporting" from the Post, even that cited at the top of this article, is primarily concerned with amplifying all of Obama's problems, how big a risk this is, how it's all the democrats' fault, and so on.
Never is it mentioned that the major source of the problem is the republican party, and never are the republicans' present and past motives for blocking healthcare reform mentioned. It's not even a case of the reporters drawing a false equivalence between the two parties -- the republican role is simply ignored.
The traditional media is pushing the republican side of the debate and twisting the democratic side. They are helping to foster doubt about health care reform.
It is so bad that Obama is now enlisting the help of progressive blogs to counter the media and republican attempts to kill off Health Care.
Apparently, they're trying to discredit him before he even goes on the air to talk. Which makes me think they're awfully scared that people are really going to tune in and listen and believe him. And then all of their doom-and-gloom talk is going to blow up in their faces.
Besides, apparently they think that the more they criticize Obama and the things he is trying to do, the more damage they will do to him, the more they will certainly discredit him.
I think they all need to take their heads out of the sand and get a reality check.
Reading the opinion piece by Maria Cheng in the Sunday Pioneer Press I got to wondering who the experts are who gave Ms. Cheng her title "European health care far from perfect." I am familiar with the reports coming out of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development comparing health outcomes and expenditures. These have included the summary "How does the United States compare?" which pointed out that the US spends about twice as much per capita as the european systems, our health status, life expectancy infant mortality etc. are falling behind the improvements being made in Europe. So, I wondered who the experts she cited were. Here's one. Someone, at something called the Institute Economique Molinari, complains that in France, which OECD ranks as the best health care system in Europe, the state has displaced services formerly provided by the private sector. I wondered what the Institute was. Here's the first sentence from their parent organization's web site: "The form of social organization known as the State, an increasingly virulent parasite on civil society, is entering the final stages of an unsustainable growth that threatens the existence of civilisation itself." I couldn't find Dr. Crespo's Institute but I found an article by him entitled "BLACK MARKET MEDICINE: AN ETHICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STATE CONTROL". These appear to be rather extreme positions by U.S. standards. European health systems no doubt have their problems. But they probably also have reputable critics.
Okay, so the system should be reformed, and maybe there should be a way for those who can’t afford it to get some kind of insurance. Why not ask the industry what should be done? Why not ask those who treat people? Why not ask the consumers? Why not ask the individual states in which insurance companies operate? In short, why are we letting politicians craft their soak the successful solutions to the problem?
"Why not ask the Industry what should be done?" Gee, that's a good idea:
"Health Care Industry, what should be done?
Health Care Industry: "I made $100 billion in profits last year. The system works great. Nothing should be done. We have the best system in the world. USA! USA!"
"Thanks, Health Care System."
Great advice, Liberty.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25104.html
In the bill, Democrats provide $245 billion to eliminate an annual shortfall in payments to doctors under Medicare. Democrats resolved this annual headache, in large part, to win crucial support for the bill from the American Medical Association. That money currently counts against the overall costs of the bill, but Democrats have introduced legislation that would remove remove this obligation from federal deficit.