Have you ever seen a more polarized congress by facial expression?
Never mind them. What was proposed and what is acceptable, and more importantly what is possible?
The president makes his case for immediate action on crisis. The crisis is that uninsured or underinsured americans will die, and that our deficit will go out of control. I have no doubt that the former is true. As for the deficit, I don't buy it unless you want to argue that Medicare and Medicaid will one day take more of the federal budget than all other programs ...added together. Of course the president specifically said he is not going to touch those programs.
The president proposed that law will ensure that insurers MUST accept you nomatter your history. That is good. Left unsaid is that for this to be encompassed premiums MUST rise or the money to accrue the payments for people already sick must come from elsewhere. Physics.
The president then went on that no insurance company will be able to drop you if you get sick. Terrific. A go. Your insurance must be able to go with you (unless you get equal or better at the next job). Fine. Whatever. I think we all agree.
Next, he dealt with the uninsured, or underinsured because of affordabililty. Key issue. His proposal centered on a national exchange allowing small businesses and individuals to band together and get the great prices. Somehow. Details? Don't know? Subsidized? Paid for how? Never the less, on principle a national insurance exchange among all 1300+ companies in the business is a great idea ...but here is the great divide between parties, for what the republicans want is a NATIONAL FREE MARKET of all those companies with the result like that of cell phones plans, plummeting prices for consumers and better choice for all.
Do both. That is your compromise. Minimal costs.
The president then went on about tax credits and leaving no one uninsured as a moral proposition. Why not no one without a job as a moral proposition and thus seeing that they have insurance in that manner? Where does that end? Where is THAT in the constitution?
He admitted that while he favored a public option, it was on the table and mentioned the tort reform which WOULD decrease costs of service.
My question is, WHY is the democratic party not rushing to allow a free national market of insurance? Who benefits from restricted trade? Why won't the republicans ADMIT that such free trade alone CANNOT guarantee low (enough) insurance costs for all to be insured? Why won't the democratic party ADMIT that malpratice insurance costs are so high hospitals close obstetrics depts and doctors just LEAVE the practice and ADMIT what that means?
Why doesn't the president event MENTION the consequences of 49 million more customers with the same numbers of doctors and nurses?
What are the details of how illegal aliens will be prevented from entering the roles? NATIONAL IDENTITY CARDS FROM THE IRS? How?
How on earth are you going to save 900 BILLION dollars to fund the ideas you presented? I simply do NOT believe the federal govt can do better at eliminating waste.
DON'T BUY IT.
That means that this program, given the mass disbelief I feel is extant in the nation which reflects mine (and that has NOTHING to do with party or prez), is going to have a very hard time, unless we all believe it can be funded, nomatter WHAT it says.
We don't have faith in the govt creating such a program which works because we don't have faith in the govt. We look at Medicare/Medicaid and see patients being taken care of (though many doctors do not want Medicaid patients) but a system whose own inefficiencies and costs will break the system.
If the end result of too many people and not enough doctors, nurses, and equipment MUST BE RATIONING, then this needs to be said. And we need to have that debate, and settle that issue and resolve the problem (it CAN be solved).
In short I heard a few good things, with the possibility of a larger compromise but the costs not dealt with realistically.
Most happily of all, he finally shut up in time for us to see Jorge Posada hit the game winning 3 run homer in the bottom of the 8th.
And Joe Wilson of South Carolina WAS WAY OUT OF LINE.
WAY WAY OUT
6 comments:
The mainstream media have already branded Joe Wilson as "the Presidential heckler." Clearly, Wilson did damage to the Republican side of the aisle.
Your analysis here is spot on, Epa. BHO's speech was designed to give the listener something to like in the speech.
This morning, I read this over at Politico: "What he said, what he meant." Pity that most Americans will not be reading that essay.
My gut reaction is that BHO made headway and that Congress will pass some kind of health-care bill. But, hey, what do I know?
Mr. AOW, one of the least politically interested people I know, declared after the speech was over, "A lot of big talk, but no real plan." Mind you, Mr. AOW is in favor of some kind of health-insurance reform as he's one of those rated over double the usual premium because of pre-existing conditions (HIPAA coverage).
Both Mr. AOW and I noted that BHO didn't say anything about fees for pre-existing conditions, only that coverage could not be denied for pre-existing conditions.
Both Mr. AOW and I questioned BHO's definition of affordability with reference to premium rates.
The thing is, if these putzes and morons will get it together APOLITICALLY they can achieve something worthwhile.
It's a good test of the system as it is today.
Are we talking about what Obama should do here or what there is a snowball's chance in a sauna that he actually will do? How much compromising is he willling to do and risk his "social justice" agenda? Because in the long run "changing the system" is what is foremost in his mind, not fine tuning the details.
The national insurance free market and tort reform are crucial here, but what is the chance of getting either? And is it true that under this bill the government will be choosing who goes to med school for what speciality and where they will practice, to say nothing of how much they will make? There go your new doctors and nurses unless we import them all from places where they are conditioned to work under such rules.
Wilson was an idiot for losing his cool and shouting out. It was irresponsible to have let himself do that. But I winced for him because I've done it too. And he spoke the truth. He just did it at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and in the worst possible place.
Wilson's invective reminded me of the British parliament. There they constantly shout such remarks at each other. In some ways that is a better system than allowing the Prez (whomever that may be) to smile, lie and throw bromides around for an hour.
Of course, as a culturist, I must appreciate the decorum inherent in the American tradition. But it is not out line with western ethics to have a boisterous verbal political brawl.
Has tort reform been included? I thought that was something BHO left out. If it passes, no one who voted for it can claim to be shocked by $400 dollar tongue depressors.
www.culturism.us
The English Parliament participates in incredible verbal jousting sessions. And, one of the most amazing things about it is that the MP's keep their composure and their sense of humor, while they are being attacked.
I love to watch those on TV.
Wilson was spot-on. It was a lie. Dems not once, but twice, shot down amendments to keep illegals from being covered. I'm glad he said it. I don't see how that damages Republicans. It was ballsy and the right thing to do. He's my new hero. More people should treat our politicians like that. They are, after all, our bitches, not the other way around.
Post a Comment