If Republicans are interesting in improving health care, and they believe incremental changes are the way to go, why didn't they propose any during the 6 years they had full control of the WH and Congress?
The scale of proposed reform is very modest - the creation of a public option as part of our already heavily regulated system is pretty tame - an extreme change would be more like fulll scale nationalization along the lines of British NHS. Accordingly, why would you characterize it as "blind, complete sweeping"
There are always certain issues that will be in the forefront and 5 years ago, healtcare was not one of them. live in the now.
As a point of contrast, here's how the GOP's conservative brothers in arms over in London approach healthcare:
There is at least 21% of the populace. If those people see Republicans as being Democrat light the Republicans will be in even more trouble than they are now. What the Republicans are doing is classic minority strategy. They aren't in a position to propose solutions so instead oppose with the hope that the majority cannot maintain cohesion and collapses.
You could say that the economy or the war in Afghanistan are more pressing issues now than health care too. Administrations do have the power to define what issues are important.
yeah, pursuing WMDs and Osama Bin Laden really panned out well I'm convinced that Republicans in Congress have no interest in rational discussion with the Obama administration. I think there are some conservatives out there who are looking for change and could live with compromises in health care reform but right now the whole shtick with the mid-term elections and etc. is mindflaying Republicans into determined resistance to all things proposed by the White House.
Exactly my point - all of the difficulties about this whole Health Care debate is just being used to try to tarnish Obama as a leader. Kinda sad.
Im not going to argue with every liberal on this BBS. If the same argument is being rehashed, im not going to keep responding nor am I going to respond to the trolls. I did answer your question. First, there is a distinction between the political party itself and the people who follow the party. I am not liberal. I am not Democrat. I am not conservative. I am not Republican. I am not "independent". I am not Libertarian or any other party out there. My opinion is the two party system has made us slaves into following each partys agenda. Both of the major parties are horrible and the both seek only to make their party stronger. The Republican party itself does not want HCR as it has power in the free market. The average conservative Joe does want some sort of HCR, but unfortunately, its party will not deliver. I am ONLY for a free market solution as I am against big government. Don't confuse that statement with anarchy. The government has its place, but I don't need the government taking 12 1/2% of my wages for "retirement/SS". I don't need the government to put food on my table or to offer me healthcare. I need the government to provide me with peace and protection. There are plenty of solutions to improve HCR. The liberal solution is the same crap but a different sewer. My suggestions? Start with Tort Reform. Bring down the unnecessary cost. You will never have affordable HC if doctors can't stay in business. Next, flood the market with doctors. Since we must have government intervention, let them heavily or fully subsidize the cost of going to school. Let the ER be a trama center, not because you think you have to see the doctor right away. If I had a minor problem, wouldn't it be great to just show up at the doctors office w/out an appointment and pay a fraction of the cost? Its a simple supply and demand issue. With tort reform, little or low school loans, doctors partnering practices, and a large supply of doctors, this will force the minor issues in HC cost to significantly drop. With this, cost to the doctors office could easily be $50-$75, in which everyone would have to pay. This will leave insurance to be what insurance is suppose to be ... for "when something really bad happens". This will dramatically drop the cost of insurance. Will any of this happen? Absolutely not. What does the Democratic party stand to gain? Nothing. What does the Republican party stand to gain? Absolutely nothing. Only you and I stand stand to gain.
Obama does deserve criticism for how he is handling this. He has largely allowed opponents to define the message while also allowing Congress to define the bill. If Obama wants to get it passed he needs to take more control of both the process and the message.
Wouldn't protection though include that you have access to health care? How much does peace and security matter when you can't get medical care? I find this argument contradictory to your argument above of asking for limited government. Wouldn't tort reform be government regulating the legal profession? It seems to me you are trying to avoid regulation of one field by asking for more regulation of another. Having the government fully subsidize the cost of going to school for doctors is probably going to cost as much if not more than a public option as has been discussed in the current bills and also represent a far greater intrusion of government.
We already did that in Texas, and it had no impact on insurance rates. In fact, Texas has some of the fastest rising rates in the nation.
For the record, I actually enjoy your posts, when you make them. I may disagree or find them lacking of supporting rationale most of the time, but at least you're honest about your opinions. Maybe one of these days you will defend them when rebuttal is offered. I find your cynicism admirable and I agree. I don't identify myself as republican or democrat either. For the record it was not my question - I only pointed out where your statements were obtuse. You countered that I was going off tangent, to which I accused you of the same, and remarked that such a complaint was illegitimate regardless, given the breadth of topic available. Which I would think includes the ability to get reasonable health care. Be it via a public plan or whatever. The simple fact is that this is not the case, and as such reform is needed. Only one party is actively pursuing it. The problem with a "free market" solution is that it is not a priority (or even possible) for private enterprise to cover everyone. Doing so would cut into profit - and therein lies the problem. How so? I asked this before and you ignored it. How is a non-profit public option anything like our current monopolized pseudo-free-market system? I believe that Major has shown this to be ineffective before repeatedly. No doubt you ignored it. I wonder why... This would be really expensive too. And still leave a private entity to extract profit at the expense of the public's health options. However, I do like the idea of removing doctors as GPs, and replacing them with Nurse Practioners. I think it silly to waste time and money on a GP who will either send you to a specialist or prescribe the same old antibiotics. I am also fine with making insurance actual "insurance" for medical emergencies above "x" amount. Leave everything under "x" subject to the free market - the rest should be (IMO) socialized. (Note: In this case I mean "really" socialized, not fox news "we don't understand political theory" socialized.) All that being said, I don't think your two points above really address the health care issue at root level. An aging populace, more expensive procedures, increased longevity (due to the expensive procedures), an obese population, and a small collective of private companies thriving off those four problems. Helping to bring health care costs down for the american citizenry will be a huge victory, IMO, for the democrats. (I say democrats, as republicans have shown no interest to impugn upon the domain of big business). However, I would not be surprised that even if this does pass, it takes several years for the public to realize the accomplishment, if they ever do (see sig).
1) that was more than 5...and 6 years ago. 2) that's comparing a tooth cleaning check up to a root canal so here's to you, sir.
Not at all. With that logic, the government can find any reason to regulate our lives under the guise of peace and security. You can't privatize the military, police, fire dept, ect ... We can expect the government to protect us from foreign invaders, criminals, and fires. Promoting "free market" principles to these ideas will create chaos, and by definition, anarchy. The cost of health care is not creating anarchy. Im a strong advocate of the 10th amendment,which nearly makes nearly all the fed government programs illegal.(please leave that debate for another thread). I however do understand that we need regulations of some sort, such a FCC, FDA, FAA, DOJ, ect ... provide. The problem with regulation is that it introduces rules that lead to exploitation. You have people exploiting the system and doctors have no defense against it. Where the answer lies, I don't know. Understand that im for limited government, not anti or no government. Obama's HC plan is going to be a mess. We just need to agree to disagree. Personally, I believe Obama's HC plan is going to cost a whole lot more than expected, regardless where the money comes from. I don't see how this is an intrusion, at least no more than bailing out banks and the automotive industry. What is an intrusion is Obama telling me I must go purchase insurance or I will have to pay higher taxes and non doctor personal (Ie: the goverment) having access to my health records. But like the patriot act, if i have nothing to hide, i shouldn't worry.
It's getting there. Still not a damn bit of rationale. You might as well do the normal space ghost thing and yell "SOCIALISM" - the intellectual merit is roughly equivalent. I presume then, that you don't have insurance? lol I think that a reasonable price to pay since you risk costing everyone more if you shirk buying insurance and end up in the emergency room. That's more than fair, frankly. I don't want you to walk away for free when I'm paying for it. Small wonder you don't identify with republicans or democrats - you represent nothing more than the party of space ghost.
Actually there have been periods of US history when police and fire fighting was privatized. Even now for many communities they rely primarily on private police forces. The US military has been outsourcing, effectively privatizing, many functions. Obviously its questionable how good of an idea it is to do those things but the government doesn't have to provide those. In regard to health care there is nothing specifically Constitutionally for or against the government providing for such. Also in case you missed it under the things like the Patriot act yes government can and does regulate all sorts of things under the guise of peace and security. Maybe not you specifically but I find it ironic that many of the people screaming about government intrusion were quiet when it came to things that were far more of a direct threat to our liberties previously. Leaving aside the 10th Ammendment, which isn't really relevant, you are still in the situation where you are asking for more regulation of the legal profession so the net result is more regulation. FOr that matter if liberty in the hands of people is your primary concern why would you limit the power of people to file suit against harm caused by doctors? You are taking that power away from people and instead relying upon the government to make sure that doctors are doing their job right since you are limiting the power of individual citizens to do that. Obama's plan may be a mess. I'm not denying that but your plan doesn't seem to help much either. Subsidizing med school for all will likely lead to all sorts of fraud and be very expensive too. Also subsidizing one field creates an artificial supply of doctors that will greatly distort the market. It would be a VAST intrustion of government. As far as the government getting your health records I haven't noticed that in the bills but FYI the government can do that already with a warrant.
