and we are about to greatly expand those rolls and....save money? That's the line of bullshit we are asked to believe.
I have been monitoring the public's reaction to the passage of this bill. Earlier in this thread (or maybe it was one of the other ones), it was mentioned that the country was 'split' on the Health Care bill. After observing about 40 different blogs where I post; contrary to what was stated before, the reactions do not reflect this "the country was split" fiction. These are all from reactions taken either right before the bill passed or after. Here is a sampling: [?=WARNING -- SEVERAL LARGE IMAGES AND STATISTICS] [/?] At least according to these numbers then, the claims that the country was split 50/50 seem to have no basis in reality. This is also reflected in the fact that, despite having a supermajority for over a year, the health care reform effort barely limped along and garnered no support from nearly 2/3 of the country. Compare that to Medicare and Social Security, which passed with much broader support and I think that tells the story of what's going on. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Which countries do you mean? Other countries with less crime? Other countries with longer life expectancies and a lower infant mortality rate?
Democracy is what got us the leadership we have now....not seeing the value of being ranked "most democratic"
So around 30% approve, and 60% disapprove, and yet its still going to be passed. You guys have what kind of government again? The fucking Iraq War had a 60% approval rating.
Indeed, while in the U.S. babies which are born - however teniously clinging to life - as much as 15 or more weeks prematurely are considered live births even though the vast majority of them don't survive - which IIRC are infant deaths not counted as such anywhere else in the world.
That was Democrats, not democracy. Had democracy prevailed, the healthcare bill would have sunk like the Bismark.
I hate those " What do you think?" snap polls online, there are a myriad of problems with them which make them completely, utterly unscientific. It doesn't matter what it's about by the way. Or the result (conservative/liberal) They All have built in response bias. I don't pay any attention to those text, snap poll stuff. The people with the most strong reactions either way are the most likely to respond, so you aren't getting an accurate picture. As for the sites you read, they may or may not be representative of America no way for us (reading on WF) to tell.
I disagree. Democracy put Barak Obama in the White House. It put Nancy Pelosi in the House and it put her in the Speaker's chair. Yes it's not DIRECT Democracy...but each was a democratic vote.
I have also been observing some of the remarks made by some of our international members regarding their health care systems. Specifically -- the comments about how the US spends more than any country on health care, but has far less coverage. A point which is not in debate. However, many of the provocateurs of this metric also fail to realize that this bill does little to nothing to normalize such disparities....and further, their citation of such numbers reveals that they themselves only have a cursory knowledge of their own health care systems and the differences between the US and other countries' health care systems. To further clarify this point then, I have undertaken a project which will compare cross-systemically various Health Care Systems in terms of out of pocket costs and Per Member Per Month Premiums (PMPM's). (I usually prefer to perform cross system health care analyses in terms of benefit levels and medical efficiency (economics kinda bores me now), but that is neither nor there.) It seems most people are interested in the kitchen table question anyway -- how much is this gonna cost me -- so that is the important question to look at. To that end, I have the Netherlands, Australia, England, Ireland, and Canada on my list. Any other countries then, please feel free to ask and I shall synthesize the analysis for those countries as well.
You know I adore you Em, but it's hard to take any dissention from you on this seriously since I know darn well you would have been thrilled as kittens feeding on Mama if this very same mandated healthcare scheme had been enacted by Hillary...which it would have as she campaigned on it. It's really the fact Obama did it and not her that upsets you, isn't it?
Yes, I am familiar with the methodological deconstruction redux. However, as I indicated in my original post, it is the aggregate response, the trend emerging, that is notable here. Even taking into account the flaws that you mention -- response bias btw, can be applied to just about most polls these days, especially when you consider that many of larger polling outfits have become very secretive over the last two years of their sample size and makeup.......even taking into account such flaws, I would argue that the overall trend cannot be faked. You could plausibly argue that one of these was skewed, two of these was skewed, but site upon site showing such similarities? I don't think so. Further, I should also point out that the internet has long been considered Barack Obama and the Democrats' domain. Many pundits, and even the Obama campaign has said that it was their use of the internet, of social media, etc that made the difference for them in the last election. As a Democrat (I assume you are Dem, or at least left leaning), you are probably also aware of the Netroots; something which is almost distinctly Democratic. So your argument that "those with reactions are likely to respond" doesn't wash. The Democrats clearly have an advantage in internet operations and even then, the responses we have seen are not accordingly reflective. As for the blogs that I post at and read at, I do so at blogs of just about every political stripe. For instance, I will read and post at ThinkProgress to FreeRepublic (though to be honest, neither is a place I generally like to spend much time). There are some sites I enjoy more than others, but for the purposes of information, I do this specifically to get a more representative understanding of what the country is thinking.
Had they listened to their constituents instead of the back room wheeling and dealing, the bill would have failed and democracy would have prevailed. Had they listened to the people who actually perform health care, such as myself, and simply asked us what we need to do to fix health care, we could have told them, fixed the health care system without a government takeover, and democracy would have prevailed. But did I get a phone from The Obama asking for my opinion? Nooooooooooo... The only people who will be asked for opinions will be those with a Masters or Doctorate degree: the very brainiacs who came up with all of these whizbang ideas that sound great in theory and looks good on paper, and it makes them feel like they've made their mark and done something to justify their graduate degrees, but do nothing in practicality except to clog up the health care system. Most of these "experts" don't know the difference between a stethoscope and a band-aid. Ask the people who actually do the job how to fix health care. We'll be more than happy to tell you. In fact, we can give you an ear full.
Don't froget the most obvious: "You're overweight here's your new diet plan. Follow or you will be denied treatment."
And that is the plan of the Democrats....... People don't realize that this is the opening shot in turning us into a single payer system When things go bad the Democrats will of course blame those greedy insurance companies and the Republicans and they will push for new laws that will eventually eliminate insurance companies.
Untrue. Clinton campaigned on and would have gotten a reform package that included a strong public option. The public option isn't just window dressing; it's the biggest and best cost control measure that could have made it into this legislation without eliminating for profit insurance in its entirety. It also would have been a big political winner, more popular than almost anything else about this reform.
Are you out of your fucking mind? Wait of course you are..... They talked big about a public option but the Democrats had to tuck their tails between their legs on that one because a population that doesn't like the current shit they passed had ZERO love for the public option when it first came out.
Way to miss the point. I chose to be tongue-in-cheek about it before, but to be completely frank I've never understood why so many people like you would whine about the US not being like other countries. The US is its own country and should make its own goals. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at what other countries are doing and see if we can improve ourselves based on what we see, but I am saying that just because other countries have fucked up and developed socialist health care systems or any other fuck up they might have done, doesn't mean the US should strive to follow suit. So this bullshit about "all the other industrialized nations have UHC" is just that, bullshit. Why the fuck should the US not handle health care its own way when UHC has plenty of shit wrong with it as can be seen in all the examples of it, including existing systems within the US. Oh, you didn't know about that? Yeah, the Reservations use a government-run health care system that members of the tribe can go to, but they have problems with waiting lists, abuses, and lack of funding, too.
Well personally I totally understand the differences and don't think this bill goes anywhere near far enough to actually make a serious difference. What I argue against is the claim that any UHC system would be super-expensive and made of fail. I couldn't care one way or another how the US chooses to run it's healthcare system.
No worries, I adore you also as you know and your question is a fair one. I shall endeavor to give a response that appropriately respects the honesty with which it was asked. I have also asked myself this question, particularly in response to Hillary's remarks on the passage of the health care bill, remarks btw which I found to be quite short and even somewhat faint in praise. I have looked at what I think Hillary would have done and then compared it to this bill. One of the most basic differences, as Liet mentioned, is that Hillary would have done this with a public option. I know the public option is not very popular among some places, but if we were to have a mandate, then a mandate would also have needed the public option. Otherwise, we literally are being horded off to the insurance companies, paying for what is little more than just a bailout for the insurance companies. This difference is not only what Hillary campaigned on, I can also look to her history and reasonably say she would not have agreed to a mandate without a public option. Why? Here is where it gets interesting. I have thought a lot about this 'health care reform' in the context of Democrats previous efforts. (Whenever I am stuck in my analyses, I find that turning to the history of the matter provides some insight that can get me going again). To that end, this brought me to two major instances that Democrats have tried HCR previously. That would be Teddy Kennedy and Nixon in the 60's or 70 (I forget the decade), and of course Hillary in the 90s. Teddy Kennedy was offered a compromise by Nixon where he would have actually given Kennedy the public option. Kennedy declined, because he was for single-payer at the time and didn't think it went far enough. Kennedy would later admit that this was one of the biggest political mistakes of his lifetime, turning down Nixon's offer. Fast forward to Hillary in the 90s, we all know what happened there. But one thing I think people forget about the 90's is that the Republicans offered Hillary a 'deal' back then, a deal which she declined on principle. That's what so interesting about this current bill for me actually -- because if I were to make a general statement on this bill, I would say that much of this bill is in fact what the Republicans offered Hillary back in 1993. It has many of the same hallmarks. For instance, the same guy (Chip Kahn) who ran the Harry and Louise ads against Hillary in 93/94.....was one of the FIRST guys to sign up in support of Obama's health care reform bill. Chip used to be insurance guy early in his career, and though he works for the hospitals now, I would say his first priority, making sure the insurance companies are fed, hasn't changed. Hence, why this bill is being seen as a bailout to the insurance industries....it was helped along by one of their biggest lobbyists! (Similar thing with the Pharma lobbyist, Billy Tauzin). The people that the Democrats used to fight against to get meaningful reform, instead, they made them strange bedfellows this time around. Anyhow, to get back to what I was saying, the only difference between then (the 60's/70's and 93/94) and now that I have noticed is that....while previously Democrats declined such changes on the basis of principle, this time, they not only accepted the corporatist welfare aspect of the bill, they made it their own and called it "progressive." In essence, they disregarded everything that Democrats had fought for for decades, and with the sole motivation of just passing anything, they passed what they would have never passed previously. Other things to also remember about Hillary's idea for health care -- 1) Hillary would not have attempted this in her first year of office. Don't get me wrong, I know Health Care would have been a priority for her, but I remember a distinct shift in her platform when it came to health care in terms of timing. Up until about late summer 2007, she was advocating working on Health Care in her first term, maybe even her first year. But, she also observed how the economy was changing, and late in 2007, early 2008, she said she would approach the economy first, and major health care reform (immediate issues notwithstanding) would have to wait until the economy had been addressed. So, certainly to that end, she would not have done the same thing....she would have focused on the economy first. Another thing -- Hillary's plan, while it did include a mandate.....if I may distill it concisely.... would have been modeled after the unemployment insurance system. Health care coverage (as provided by your employer as part of your compensation) would remain the way that is, but should you lose your job, etc....you would have health care coverage in the same way that unemployment works...something to help you get by until you could get back on your feet. I personally thought it was a very smart way to handle the matter, especially given the complex political issues to consider. It was a way to get the job done (extend coverage), and yet, without the daunting, massive "overhaul" and unknowns of the current Health Care Bill. And don't even get me started on my disgust with the Stupak executive order. Seems to me like STUPAK is KAPUTS, for he has made enemies of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates (for different reasons) at this point. I guess what I am trying to say is that.....when I look at all the different aspects of the bill, I find so much that is lacking, even from a progressive aspect. The fact of the matter is this bill has pissed off many people, for so many different reasons. "Pro-Choice" people, "Pro-Life" people, Anti-Abortion, Women's rights advocates, Free Market supporters, true Socialized Health Care advocates (and not pretend progressives)....we have all been betrayed. The only people who are happy about it (if it can be called happy, I have seen very little actual elation) are the ones who are so invested in Obama as a religion that they don't want to entertain the idea that he just sucks, because of what it may reflect on themselves. But as for the rest of us, it no longer matters which label we put on ourselves.....because whatever the individual reasons may be, there was a big letdown by our government for many of us last night. And while I will always maintain that I am for UHC because I want everyone to have health care coverage, for me, it has to be done right also. You can't just take crap and call it UHC, despite whatever some BOTs may think. It has to actually be UHC. And this bill does none of that. Heck, it still leaves a portion of the population uncovered. Not to mention that our premiums will still be more expensive than our "UHC neighbors" across the globe. When you add all that together then, for me personally (even without the Hillary element)....there are enough reasons for me to dissent on this bill.
You live in a representative democracy. That's the way it works. Unless you want a referendum of the people on every issue that comes up that's the way it is going to continue to work.
He "fell" for it 'cause he wanted to. If nothing else, this fiasco puts the lie to the myth of the moderate democrat. I'll never vote for one these bastards again, including Evan Bayh.
Well if we are going to have UHC that is how I want it. Leave insurance for personal property like cars and homes and get it out of health care.
