AlbqOwl

If they wanted us to know, why aren't they telling us? Whatever happened to the pledge for the most transparent administration in history?

Late last year, we got a mega billion bailout package and we don't have a clue about what they did with that money. We do know half of it was held over for President Obama to use.

Early this year we got a second mega billion bailout package and we don't have a clue about what they did with that money or how it has benefitted anything. At least Biden was honest enough to say that some of it was wasted.

Early this year Congress passed a massive omnibus spending bill, the last for this year's budget, and the President's excuse for not letting us have a good look at that was that it was George Bush's budget and therefore he would just sign it.

Early this year we got a massive--unheard of in size and scope--stimulus bill that had to be delivered to Congress in the wee hours of the morning, voted on the same day with minimal debate and before anybody had time to read it, and signed into law immediately by the President because the whole economy was about to crash and it was vital to get the economy rolling and save jobs immediately. Well the economy continues to founder, unemployment keeps going up month by month, and now we are told that they never intended for it to really kick in before the next year or so. But it was a flat out emergency.

And now we have them overhauling the healthcare system with obvious intent to mostly dismantle and rebuild it, it represents 17% of the GDP of the nation and is being rush through at breakneck speed, will probably be delivered to Congress in the wee hours of the morning, voted on the same day before anybody has a chance to read it, and the President will sign it into law without letting us see it first because we 'can't afford to wait any longer'. By that time, it will be too late for us to intervene.

Oh yes, and the President says he hasn't read it and is leaving it up to Congress to put it together. And who is writing it? Not our elected leaders. It's Congressional staffers and lobbyists who are creating this masterpiece for us. The only coherent thing we got out of his last press conference on this was that he and Congress have no intention of subjecting themselves or their families to what they will be mandating for the rest of us.

Doesn't that all give you huge confidence?

Give me a break.

Those who want whatever is done to be done slow, careful, and right, had better be hollering from the rooftops and hope we can encourage more members of Congress to get really squeamish and cold feet. The way things are right now, anybody who trusts this bunch with their healthcare needs to have his/her head examined.

__________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

celticlord

Except the legislation isn't generic, and hasn't been generic for quite some time. You know this, or you are not nearly as current on these matters as you suggest.

I've been very explicit that my criticisms are in regards to the horror show known as HR3200. It is the bill Americans do not want.

It's easy to say "I want reform." Hell, if that's all there was to the debate you would be agreeing with me. It is not all there is to the debate.

There is a bill, a bill the Anti-Republicans in Congress want to bring to a vote, a bill Americans reject. There is 1018 pages of proposed legislation that does not reform, does not control costs, does not improve competition, does not improve insurance, does not do a damn thing except spend $1 Trillion and leave us $239 Billion in debt.

We do not dare wait until this boondoggle gets into its final form, because if we wait until then to oppose its passage, we will have lost the opportunity to prevent a great wrong being done to America's health care system and America's future. This bill needs to be shot down, and it needs to be shot down now. Waiting until it is finalized is waiting at the barn door for the horse to run out before closing it.

jackalope

Go to the legislative sites and pull up the bills, or to the CBO, and pull up the analysis. If you want to know what's in the various bills, you can find out.

Once there is ONE bill, out of conference, then it will be easier to follow, of course, b/c there won't be competing bills and proposals and counterproposals.



The second mega bailout, is that the auto bailout? I'm pretty sure we know what we did with that money.

And, the economy was in crisis, and there was a flat out emergency. Thank God a flat out free fall has been averted. Bad as this is, THAT would have been a world of hurt worse.



There is absolutely not an obvious intent to dismantle and rebuild the system. There is an annoying and obvious intent to preserve private health insurance options. Not annoying in that they will be there, but annoying in that big companies will not have access to either the proposed health insurance exchange, or the proposed public option - specifically so that everyone will not get the hell out of their current plans. I think choice should be freer, and if large companies want access too, they should have it, but they won't.



I don't know, that's how our gov't works. Noone thinks it's perfect, but then again, dismantling and rebuilding our legislative process isn't really on the agenda right now. We have alot of other things on our plate right now. Although, I've heard some in the progressive blogosphere talking about the committee process and how it needs to be blown up.


I do have a great deal of optimism that this will be addressed and accomplished. I'm looking forward to it. Of course, I don't expect perfection, but we never get perfection. That's not a reason not to move forward tho.



I trust my doc with my healthcare needs, but I'm trusting the Congress to improve - vastly - on the wreck of health insurance that exists right now.

sam_w

Here is a question; why don't we just end Medicare and Medicaid? Why are the Republicans who are so opposed to "Socialism" not propose ending Medicare? They could of in 2003, controlling both House, Senate, and White House. We could save $500+ billion, and growing, each year.

jackalope

No, what I know, and what you do too, is that there are THREE bills in Congress right now. Two in the Senate, and one in the House. There is no single bill. And, any of the bills that exist now, will not be the final bill.

I don't understand the need to go back over that again and again. HR3200 is not the same as either Senate bill. And HR3200 is not the bill that will be final. HR3200 today is not even the same bill as it was yesterday. Last night they added the Medicare regional pmts deal. And it's not the same bill as it was last Tuesday, when they added the Medicare independent board to address long term costs. And it's not the same bill as it was several weeks ago when it didn't contain the public option.

I don't even know why you keep talking about it like it's been voted on and is on it's way to conference committee. That makes no sense.

jackalope

Interesting question. Of course, being that they just expanded it - largest expansion since the 60s? I think - and didn't pay for that expansion (who cares, chuck it onto the debt), I don't expect them to propose that

Harry Guerrilla

You seem a lot more reasonable than others here who like to talk at people instead of trying to have a civil debate so we'll be on good terms because I know you mean well. Just wanted to say that to start.

Back to the meat of things though, most people like to use other countries as an example of what we should do but they never research anything about the particular system other than they know that government controls some part of it.

The French system is often used an example of a good system of government health care, however, when you look closer you'll find that it actually resembled a private HMO plan and it is not a single payer system.

They pay approximately 19% in taxes for just their health care and that does not cover the entire amount. The citizens are responsible for 10-40% of the rest of that the government doesn't pay, in fact the French system uses a reimbursement method and not a direct payment system.

In effect they are using the price as a way of discouraging treatment and usage. The citizen has to foot the whole bill initially and is only later reimbursed for 60-90% of the costs. They government also pays for the doctors education which I'm almost certain is not included in the cost of the health care system when it actually should be.

There are a lot of hidden costs and things that no one realizes is going on in specific health care systems world wide and we shouldn't just adopt a UHC type plan because more people agree with it.

__________________
Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.- H. L. Mencken

Harry Guerrilla

We should as it is an unfair burden on the states but the largest voting block in this country is elderly people. Elderly people "think" they have already paid for these services through taxation when in reality they never paid enough for the services they are getting. In regards to medical care they get about $3 for ever $1 they have paid in and over all the government spends $6 on the elderly for every $1 they spend on children.

__________________
Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.- H. L. Mencken

sam_w

Except who in their right mind would ever propose this? The AARP would mount an insurrection worse than the Iraq insurgency. The party/politician that pushes an end to Medicare is one who will never see public office again. Let's put it this way, there may be a lot of elderly Republicans who would become immediate Democrats at the first bill they get for medical or prescriptions. It is politically unattainable, and financially unsustainable. The only option then is to drastically reduce the cost trajectory which is currently rising at a faster rate than inflation (hence why it is now costing $500b/year).

celticlord

Then you have answered your own question.

Republicans don't pursue Medicare repeal because their constituents would oppose it.

Anti-Republicans pursue HR3200 despite their constituents opposing it.