My position on healthcare has changed. About a year ago I was 100% against government involvement with the insurance field. Yesterday morning I was 80% against it. Today I am in the "open-minded" camp. I don't believe the insurance field is "broken" the way people say it is, because I think people have too high of an expectation of what insurance should pay for. I also don't believe that most of these horror stories that are thrown out there are anything more than a small minority of cases. I believe that most people with insurance will find that the cost sharing nature of their plan is fair in the end (if they use the policy) and most people never get policies rescinded or claims denied. That said, I accept that there are problems that need to get fixed. I think a vast majority can be fixed without a public insurance option however. I work in the health insurance field, and I have lobbied for particular sets of reform. After listening to Obama's speech last night, I am going to hope that what he said was the truth and give him my support to attempt reform. What changed it for me? For the first time I pondered the question; What if my beautiful bride was stricken with a disease and there was a treatment that would help her and I couldn't give it to her do to cost? My insurance is good so I know I won't face that dilemma (fingers crossed) but my brother is one of the uninsured. He's uninsured because he's irresponsible and has ruined his career. If he got sick though, he would probably bankrupt my mother. I realize now that this is true for many people, people that I while I considered, I didn't really consider. And finally, Obama hit a chord with me. He didn't directly refer to it, which disappointments me because I know he only didn't quote it because of his left leaning supporters, but he made reference to Scripture. Matthew 25:30-41
Glad we agree. So you think if he weren't black everyone on both sides of the political aisle would be kissing his feet with joy, worshiping his every step, ready to sign in to law everything he wants?
Not at all, but the fact of the matter is that being black does make it "different". Now, it may not be different to you or me specifically, but to a lot of people it can and does make a difference. If nothing else, being the first of anything makes for extra scrutiny.
He is from South Carolina possibly the most backward of the states and most likely from one of the district with the most birthers and other crazies. They hate blacks; they hate undocumented aliens, they hate educated people and they hate government action even if it could help them with their problems. He may very well become a hero to the local yahoos.
Yeah I get that. What I was saying was that pointing out that he's black anytime someone disagrees with him or calls him a liar as if he his color is the reason anyone would dare to do so is weak. I absolutely acknowledge that Obama deals with a lot of things because of his race, but Joe Wilson calling him a liar was about Joe Wilson being a Republican who is adamantly opposed to healthcare losing his common sense. Obama's skin color doesn't have to be brought up in EVERY issue.
His district is Columbia. I don't know much about SC so I'm not going to say whether anything you said is true or false.
A fair point. I would counter (delicately, as it is not a very good counter) that it was particularly unfortunate that the guy who chose to make an ass of himself and his party on the national stage by yelling at the first african american president happened to be from S. Carolina.
I just don't think it's any bigger of a deal. Would it have been more appropriate had he done it to Hillary Clinton? Would it have been less offensive had it been a Republican from Florida?
No. Possibly. The point of my previous post is that you're just asking for these types of accusations when you choose to be so outrageously impolite (and simultaneously wrong, I might add) to the first black president - and probably more so when you come from a state with the history of S. Carolina. I'm not defending the use of the race-card, but I don't think it's fair to pull it from the deck either.
I see your point, I just don't see it as a very significant factor. I don't think it should be pulled from the deck, but it's a little annoying when it's flipped every time.
You can continue the coverage you have if you like. If you'd prefer a cheaper, lesser option, you'd have access to that as well. Why is that bad?
A lot of the far right listened. Of course they only watched to hate the President more. I don't know anyone that changed their minds last night. I was really dissappointed in my party for the sign and the comment. Republicans need to focus on a bipartisan solution. If they keep focusing on not allowing any public option it will kill them from getting stuff in the bill to help the private industry compete alongside a public option. I personally want a stand alone public option and an unlimited freedom of choice. If private industry can do healthcare better they will survive against a stand alone public option. Its time to start pissing off the extremists and meet in the middle.
Republicans apparently want guarantees that the current coverage doesn't change. Which, to me, contradicts their entire premise. They want government to stay out the business of insurance companies, but if a "public" option is put in place then its also the government's responsibility to guarantee that other companies don't respond in any way that will negatively impact current customers customers. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument, but that's what it sounds like to me.
I sort of agree here - I think the secondary problems with bad coverage and the like can be corrected fairly easily with more information, insurance exchanges, etc. Competition works - if decisions are being made by people with good information. With the current system, information isn't out there (do people really know whether their plan is "good" vs" bad"?) and the primary people making decisions (employers) are not the recepients of the service (employees). But that said, there's a separate problem that IS broken, in my opinion - and that's strictly cost. Insurance is going up 7-10% a year; inflation is going up 2-3% per year. Wages are going up less than 1% a year. So each year, more and more of our income is going to insurance, which isn't really providing any more than it was in the past. So that part is very much unsustainable and broken and will slowly bankrupt individuals on their own insurance and businesses providing group coverage. Today, we spend about twice as much on health insurance as we did 10 years ago, and that's projected to double again in less than 10 years. The health care industry is already 16% of our enonomy and is expected to grow to 20-22% in 10 years. Basically, we're moving to a point where our entire country is simply built around keeping people healthy.
difference is congressmen never shouted out while Clinton or Bush were addressing congress and he called him a liar but it was obvious that Obama was speaking the truth about illegals not get coverage under the bill..
That was the President I voted for last night; intelligent cogent, impassioned but compromising. . But I live in a soundbite nation, I don't think they have the attention span to actually comprehend what he had to say.
I don't disagree with any of this. I don't know that what Obama is suggesting will solve this problem though.
