No, not a functional plan of their own. Just another chart to add to the collection... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ght-gop-brings-it-to-the-battle-over-heal.php Here's Dem aide's version of the GOP health proposal:
The GOP is united in their response to health reform. Screw the uninsured and the marginally insured. We get lots of money from big pharma and big insurance. Unfortunately the 20% of Dems who might joint their devotion to these lobbies may sink the plan. If this happens we need to punish these DINO, Dems in name only at the polls. Maybe big insurance and pharma can save their ass at the polls, but let's be clear who they are and what they stand for.
How do you punish "DINOs" at the polls? By voting Republican? In most of their districts, if you think a more liberal Dem has much of a chance to get elected, I've got news for you. When the Dems start blasting "DINOs" the way the GOP blowhards blast RINOs now, that's when we will know the tide is turning back the other way.
A_3po is right, the best way to punish may not be so easy. It's best to call and voice your feelings to your rep.
Yeah....let's just bankrupt the whole damned country. We need to cover everybody, cost be damned. Good job, glynch.
I'm sorry Refman, but everybody should be covered with health care regardless of employment status. There are a few services that we as a country should perform and be capable of delivering somehow...One is public education, the other is health care.
Well we sure as hell don't have a problem with damning the costs when it comes to killing people. After leaving wars off the books for the last however many years, this complaint rings extra hollow. The idea then was "It's war! It doesn't matter what it costs, we need to get the job done." Guess what. This time getting the job done really is more important than what it costs. We do need to cover everybody -- cost or whatever else be damned. Or what the hell good are we?
This brings up an interesting question. If you think someone is entitled to health care, how much are they entitled to? I definitely think everyone should have a health care option available for them but I'm unsure of how much coverage is considered enough. Should all procedures be covered? We've had a couple of threads pointing out that most bankruptcies happen due to medical bills but regardless of coverage won't we always have bankruptcies due to medical bills? I understand the goal is to try to reduce the number and not completely eliminate them but I wonder how we draw that line. What procedures are we entitled to coverage for and which ones are we not entitled to? Does it depend on age or one's habits? Other factors?
halfbreed: How's this for a starting point? Please take all the money the government is spending defending me from bogus bogeymen like Saddam and applying it to defending me against real ones like cancer. Does that sound reasonable?
While the current system needs a complete overhaul, there are some on this board (ie glynch) that takes any opposition to the current plan at issue as uncaring and being against the little guy. The fact of the matter is that we are running an enormous deficit before adding in the healthplan. I believe that we need an inclusive healthcare system. We also need to be very calculated and careful about how we do it.
You bring up good points. Even basic coverage in a limited capacity is better than no coverage at all. Should all procedures be covered? No, but I think if it relates to a preventive need or treatment need than yes. I know it's a complicated thing, but I think we need this to happen.
The more I sit back and think and view this subject the more I'm starting to think that it is virtually impossible for a civilized society to not have a universal health care system, and virtually inexcusable for an industrialized nation not to have one. The GOP response so far has been grumbling and moaning because, frankly, they know they're screwed. They are facing enormous pressure and a mandate for change, and none of it is on topics they're comfortable touching with a ten foot pole. Their plan will essentially be to scale back as much as possible whatever the Dems come up with.
We need better than an "inclusive" system. We need coverage for all Americans. Period. And we need comprehensive coverage for all Americans. And if that means deficit spending well I can't think of a single more important reason to go into a deficit. This is all old hat and it's known to everyone here but when we don't screen for cancer we pay more on the back end. And we lose the patient. If we have any values at all, if this country stands for anything at all apart from the dream of becoming rich (and screw everyone else), which I believe it does, it ought to be taking care of its citizens. Not as a handout but as a smart strategy for making America strong. National health care should be the last place we look to cut costs. There is no area that is more life and death or more relevant to quality of life. If we can't guarantee basic health care to our citizens while every other modern country does, the American experiment has failed. I honestly don't even know why this is up for debate.
I was really only being cute about how people freak out about the cost of this while they had no problem with costs of preemptive war against a country that was no threat to us were carried off the books. I didn't mean it literally.
That is exactly the debate. Define "basic health care." Does it mean everything under the sun? Does it mean routine screening and basic doctor visits for routine illnesses? What does it mean and how do you pay for it while continuing the myriad other expenditures of government? (I personally prefer to cut all the foreign aid we send to other countries.) You have to define the terms and devise a rational way to cover the costs.
I'm not sure how I ended up on the "pro defending you from bogeymen while letting you die slowly from cancer" side of the argument but please let me know so I may avoid this pitfall in the future.
