You sound very young. Everything is right or wrong, black or white, up or down, full or empty. As you age, you will find that there is a middle ground.
Now imagine you have another childhood friend, except this one makes off with 30% of your stuff every time he helps you move. That is the private insurance industry, as per your analogy.
I see that there is middle ground, but I don't see any republicans trying to find it. They are adamantly opposed with no alternatives, and have thus taken on the simplistic "right or wrong, black or white, up or down, full or empty" approach that you deride aghast for having. The GOP needs to offer up a solution, a way to make the legislation better, or some tweaks that will make it palatable to their side or be known as the "party of no."
When the negatives outweight the positives and the comfort zone disappears, it might be time to change friends.
Incredibly ironic for you to post. Apparently, your tea party meetings have at least evolved to the point where someone said, "OK, we need someone to appear reasonable. Who's going to do it?"
The alleged "party of no" can't say yes or no. The Democratic Party rules the White House and both houses with absolute majorities. If anything, the party of "no" is really a part of the ruling party. I believe they are referred to as "Blue Dog Democrats." Republicans can merely blow whistles and cheer on the "Blue Dogs."
I bow to your advanced wisdom. However, if I sprain my back while bowing, I'd like a strong public option in the healthcare reforms to prevent much of the nonsense that exists with the status quo. My insurance provider: "I'm sorry. Your records show you were in a car accident back in '96, before you signed up with us. I'm sorry, we can't cover your back injury today." You want a "cost-effective" plan. Look at any other industrialized nation of the world. Single-payer systems and public/private hybrids are tremendously cheaper than the mess we have now, while providing better care (based on, e.g., public polling, infant mortality, mean lifespan rates). Public plans involve no profit motive and heavily reduced overheads. If you want proof in our nation that it could work, please see the VA or Medicare. Despite the horror stories often associated with both, they have proven themselves cheaper and better than the private sector, and also key, more popular among those who use them. It's very difficult to push "too hard too fast" for Obama. He is the president, elected in large part because of his demands for healthcare reforms. He has, right now, 60 Dem. senators on his side, and an even stronger coalition in the House. The odds of such a strong Democratic coalition (the people who largely fought for and brought you Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security over the years) occurring again over the next five decades are likely slim. If reform is to be achieved, so that we can begin to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of healthcare sanity & morality, those reforms must be fought for and achieved now. Mealy-mouthed, ineffectual compromise reforms will not prove enough. "White" concerns, "illegal aliens," "tort reform" with regard to healthcare reforms are all indeed red herrings, and should be treated as such.
The group with which I am associated has always been reasonable and diverse as well. I base my generalized statements on the consensus of that group, and I forward those general opinions to other tea party groups. As with any group, there are people on one extreme or the other but the majority cluster in the middle.
Advanced years is not necessarily advanced wisdom. I am merely trying to let you know that opinions temper with age. However, regarding insurance companies, there are some that are better than others depending on what factors you have to consider. As with any contract, you have to read the fine print to understand exactly what you are getting -- and not getting. One of Obama's actions that I heartily approve is the credit card agreement simplification act. It's not perfect but it is a big improvement. I feel the same way about private insurance. We need credit cards, and we need private insurance, especially for the gaps in Medicare or public health coverage in the future. Better regulation definitely is needed, but we don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
But it doesn't have to be that way. They could have a seat at the table, Obama has just about bent over backwards trying to get them involved in the process, but the GOP seems too ruled by ideology to put forth anything that might help to solve the problem. The only thing I have seen them propose is tort reform, which hasn't reduced health care costs in Texas since they capped malpractice awards.
So, what do you see in the current bill that is "throw[ing] the baby out with the bath water?" The bill regulates the insurance industry, does not do away with private insurance, and at this point doesn't even include a public option. What specific problems do you have with the legislation being proposed?
If the baby died because he didn't "read the fine print" on his mother's health insurance policy, I say yeah, throw it all out and start over. But, of course, that's not what's actually in any of the proposals currently being debated. The public option (which isn't even likely to get out of both houses) would be offered in addition to, not instead of, private sector insurance options. Then, based on consumer choice, the magic of free market competition could decide the winner(s).
“Congress wants to make it look like government-controlled health care is off the table so they can just get something passed. Once it’s law, all it takes is a few quick amendments to get the government-controlled system they wanted all along. It’s delayed-onset government control.” Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tl91YF1d3Kg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tl91YF1d3Kg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of. You realize, of course, that any future "amendments" to the law once it's passed will entail as much sturm und drang as the current debate, right? That changing laws already on the books is not just a matter of dotting the "i"s with "death panels," yes?
Here is the underpinnings of your "grass roots" organizing. "Recess Rally" sponsors... Red state http://redstate.com / American Liberty Alliance http://americanlibertyalliance.com / Michelle Malkin http://michellemalkin.com / Smart Girl Politics http://smartgirlpolitics.org / Freedom Works http://www.freedomworks.org / American Majority http://americanmajority.org / Net Right Nation http://netrightnation.com / The Sam Adams Alliance http://samadamsalliance.org / American Liberty Tour http://americanlibertytour.com / Patients First http://joinpatientsfirst.com / Americans for Prosperity http://americansforprosperity.com / Nationwide Tea Party Coalition http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com / Tea Party Patriots http://www.teapartypatriots.org / Let Freedom Ring http://www.letfreedomringusa.com / Americans for Limited Government http://www.getliberty.org / Facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55223597239 Twitter http://www.twitter.com/libertyalliance Tax Day Tea Party http://taxdayteaparty.com / All your typical average bi-partisan American citizens; right thumbs?
Obama wants bipartisanship for two reasons -- 1) if health care reform flops and is unpopular, he can protect Democrats in contested elections with "bi-partisanship" and 2) he needs Republicans votes to compensate for his growing number of defecting "Blue Dog" Democrats. Otherwise, he could care less.
Now look at the extreme organization on the other side such as MoveOn and the Daily Kos. I wish I had the time right now to dig out the corresponding "far left" to the corresponding "far right." Incidentally, I have never heard of many of the groups you listed.
