I have been in favor of reform for many years. The last few days have shown me that THIS reform is not what I want. It's a plum for the insurance companies and a poison pill for the citizen.
I agree with Lolly. If there is no public option, the citizens of America are doomed. I've heard many liberals saying they want it in at any cost and we'll fine tune it later. If it comes in with no option, yet with mandatory compliance with penalties, there will never be a change from that. Just what the insurance companies want, mandatory buying.
On friday, insurance stocks hit a 52 year high! What does that tell you? We have the worst government money can buy!!!!!!!!
view link
A short summary of heathcare " reform " legislation . --- Insurance companies , big pharma , lawyers ,the uninsured working poor , and crooked politicians win---- US taxpayers , the quality of overall healthcare , and anyone who currently has health insurance loses .
posted by Dirck
over 2 years ago
I have an allergic reaction when politicians use the word "reform" it usually means more of the same. more for my buddies and the same for those i theoretically represent. As a big user of healthcare(and fortunate to have health care insurance)I hoped our country could figure it out I am deeply saddened. Now to depress others the American experiment called democracy has been based on this can do and deliver belief in the country. That it controls its own destiny can move people , move markets and also allows for individual success. I no longer see that and do fear that if that is the case our democracy will soon be under attack. I do not see how or by whom. Just a "feeling" or thought I have been thinkiong about for quite some time.
posted by yichel
over 2 years ago
So given the responses above, it leads me to ask that if the Democrats are truly the Party of the People thay claim to be, how could they craft such a piece of legislation which is clearly partisan?
I think that many are mistaking the Senate version of health care reform as " Thee Bill ". There is a House version that is distinctly different from the Senate version. I also think that people forget the Senate version was crafted in part by Republicans ( Republicans Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, and Olympia Snow. Part of the gang of six in Max Baucus Commitee. ). In fact, Republicans have openly admitted that some of the language in the Senate version was put there to delay the bill.
Both the House and Senate version have to go back to comittee in order to debate what will go into the final version. Both houses will have to vote on the final version, and the President will have to sign the final version into law.
That is correct Charles. But it seems there are members of both parties unwilling to support legislation unless they get their "special interest needs" taken care of. Why should we expect that to change in the final bill? What happened to taking care of the common good?
But it seems there are members of both parties unwilling to support legislation unless they get their "special interest needs" taken care of. Why should we expect that to change in the final bill? What happened to taking care of the common good?
posted by MrNoParty
I'm not an expert on politics, but I think the political game is to appear to get what you can in order to have campaign fodder for your constituents. For instance. I think that Senator Ben Nelson pretty much knows that his amendment wont be in the final bill. But he can add that feather to his campaign rhetoric later down the road. Same for Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas, and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, all of which are Democrats in red states. I'm waiting to see what the final bill will look like. Everything that gets added to the bill makes it more expensive, which is why the Public Option is better.
If we limited the SOB's to one term only , there would be no need to posture for re-election .
posted by Dirck
over 2 years ago
