humidhaney

What's up brah? 30 days ago 

 

previous post next post

Why some folks think a Government "take-over" of our health care is the end of the country.

Health & Medical, National Politics

March 23rd, 2010  13 Comments

When I look at the provisions of the Health Care Bill that have been discussed in the press and outlined on various websites I feel very good about almost all of it. I am not completely comfortable with everyone being forced to have health insurance, but I would love to hear the long term plan and reasoning for that provision.

Those I know who are on the other ideological/political side than my own are not happy. Here are a few things they think right now:

• We will now see even more fraud like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203915.html

• We have placed Health Care and 1/6 of our economy in the hands of the Feds who can’t run anything right.

• This is a response to Bush. He went so “right” that Obama and Pelosi are going so “left” and now will lose sets in November so will go all out and put our entire country in danger.

• It is an insurance cartelization bill pushed through congress which unconstitutionally
forces people to buy their product and provides others with generous
subsidies to buy their product.

What do other folks think about this?

humidhaney's history

Total Posts: 933 (show recent)

Recent Posts:
Ya Ya
778 days ago

Ya Ya
778 days ago

Y@ on Prime Time
973 days ago

I am ready for some Yacht Bounce.
1029 days ago

Posts in 2012:
March: 2

Posts in 2011:
August: 1
June: 4
May: 2
April: 5
March: 4
February: 2
January: 3

Posts in 2010:
December: 11
November: 22
October: 10
September: 9
August: 20
July: 22
June: 16
May: 18
April: 34
March: 48
February: 34
January: 50

Posts in 2009:
December: 28
November: 36
October: 30
September: 13
August: 16
July: 6
June: 13
May: 32
April: 46
March: 55
February: 78
January: 74

Posts in 2008:
December: 76
November: 66
October: 48

Tags Popular A - Z
(11) dirty coast
(8) saints
(6) supa saint
(5) oilspill
(4) humid beings
(3) david vitter
(3) canary
(3) apple
(3) rt4
(3) rising tide 4
(3) oilleak
(3) iphone
(2) troll 2
(2) mayor's race
(2) citizen media
(2) john georges
(2) bp
(2) british petroleum
(2) oil spill
(2) ipad
(2) kduv
(2) obama
(2) noac
(2) new orleans athletic club
(2) review
(2) art
(2) wetlands
(2) dirtycoast
(2) commercial
(1) ibfcb
(1) books
(1) jay duplass
(1) costumes
(1) mark duplass
(1) steve zissis
(1) james perry
(1) mariage
(1) grandparents
(1) mitch landrieu
(1) love
(1) who-dat
(1) mayoral campaign
(1) frommers
(1) photoshop
(1) sarah palin
(1) 1920
(1) tv
(1) war
(1) drink
(1) bike
(1) stolen
(1) breakfast
(1) gay marriage
(1) recipe
(1) la cote
(1) leslie jacobs
(1) development
(1) screenprinting
(1) black & white
(1) oysters
(1) lunch
(1) cat
(1) iraq
(1) newspapers
(1) deep horizon oil spill
(1) electric
(1) panorama
(1) dave eggers
(1) blur
(1) ricky jackson
(1) car
(1) rubensteins
(1) 2nd line
(1) second line
(1) 2d_codes
(1) aquaman
(1) jetsons
(1) odoms
(1) mardi gras
(1) buddy-d
(1) hertz
(1) brooklyn
(1) envy
(1) painting
(1) new years resolutions
(1) videos
(1) dog
(1) drums
(1) haiti
(1) tailgating
(1) city of no
(1) tailgate
(1) blackandgold
(1) booker
(1) party
(1) pets
(1) voodoo
(1) julia street
(1) wedding
(1) red dress
(1) white linen
(1) shell
(1) bourbon street
(1) jazzfest
(1) healthcare
(1) dr. john
(1) jefferson
(1) bloggers
(1) glenn beck
(1) joseph cao
(1) vitter
(1) derrick freeman
(1) tea bag
(1) fire
(1) tropical isle
(1) dom deluise
(1) humor
(1) louisiana
(1) nagin
(1) basketball
(1) funny
(1) white house
(1) sanfranola
(1) brooklynola
(1) west bank
(1) palace
(1) humidbeings
(1) emails
(1) music
(1) stacy head
(1) communists
(1) bailout
(1) mondo bizarro
(1) crazy
(1) italian
(1) artspot productions
(1) magazine street
(1) parents
(1) loup garou
(1) restaurant
(1) app
(1) sexy
(1) voodoofest
(1) flickr
(1) fashion
(1) house of lounge
(1) photography
(1) hol
(1) drunk
(1) google
(1) gardening
(1) facebook
(1) daily show
(1) garden
(1) bad lieutenant
(1) health
(1) stress
(1) pumpkin
(1) bullet
(1) nbno
(1) blues fest
(1) new breed new orleans
(1) camera
(1) slow motion
(1) star wars
(1) downloads

COMMENTS

  •   Blazz     -1   Posted 1493 days ago 

    Keith Olbermann:

    "You will be the Flat-Earthers, the Isolationists, the Segregationists, the John Birchers. Stop. Certainly you must recognize the future is with the humane, the inclusive, the diverse-- it is with America. Not the America of 1910, but the America of 2010. Discard this dangerous, separatist, elitist, backward-looking rhetoric, and you will be welcomed back into the political discourse of this nation. Continue with it, and you will destroy yourselves and whatever righteous causes you actually believe in, and on the way you will damage this country in ways and manners untold."

    //

    While almost no one other than a few in Congress can grasp the complexity of all that is in the bill this one thing is clear, it makes this coming November very, very interesting and fewer folks will die unnecessarily.

    I am cool with that.

  •   hotspringer     +1   Posted 1493 days ago 

    I wish I could understand the core argument of the opposition. If the cost of health care reform is at the core, then where was the opposition to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Why is it so easy for our country to support war and so difficult to support the well being of Americans? Just what are we afraid of here?

  •   Blazz     0   Posted 1493 days ago 

    The wars are only 800 Billion. What really chaps my hide was the tax cuts for the wealthy that did little for the country and yet took 1.3 Trillion from our budget and caused the deficit in the 1st place.

  •   hotspringer     0   Posted 1493 days ago 

    The wars were only $800 billion.....and counting.

  •   blackshoe10     +1   Posted 1493 days ago 

    Wars are costly and wasteful by definition. Sometimes they are necessary or unavoidable. Not arguing that here. Usually they end or peter out. One thing they are not is a good reason to embark on more wasteful spending and intrusive regulation. I wonder how many people who decried the Patriot Act and its supposed trampling of privacy rights are just as het up about the level of government intrusion into our very bodies' well being and personal behavior? Whatever happened to, "Keep your laws of my body?"
    At least the suspension of habeas corpus that came with wars was rolled back later. When was the last time an entitlement got rolled back?
    How long until the state says your lifestyle is an unfair burden on the system so your coverage is denied or abridged?
    When government controls costs by fixing prices, and mandates the number of people covered, the only thing that can give is the quality and quantity of coverage. Rationing is inevitable.
    On the other end of the spectrum, look at the areas least regulated or subsidized by the state:elective surgeries like cosmetic and laser eye fixes. They continue to get better and cheaper and more accessible because comptetion drives and increase in quality and supply. Prices go down competing providers tweak efficiencies and make more on smaller margins with higher volume. Win/Win/Win.

    Note I managed to point these things out without making ad hominem attacks on universal health care proponents. If you need to cast aspersions to win your argument, you might want to check the substance of your point.

    Kudos to HH for at least look at the other side.

  •   hotspringer     0   Posted 1493 days ago 

    Concerning yesterday's historic vote on health care, I liked this piece from Politico by Republican David Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush:
    Waterloo
    March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum |
    Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
    It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

    (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

    (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

    So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

    A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

    At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

    Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

    This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

    Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

    Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

    No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

    We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

    There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

    I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

    So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

  •   blackshoe10     0   Posted 1493 days ago 

    Frum, like Andy Sullivan and Dave Brooks is one of those so called men of the right popular with lefties because he is happy to point out that conservatives would do better to abandon their principals.

    In this case the right thing to do for the Republicans also coincided with the politcally savvy thing to do. The below abomination and all of its bad side effects and unintended and indended consequences belong to the Democrats who forced it through in spite of the majority being averse to it. Why should the GOP give them any cover? The only thing bipartisan about the bill was opposition to it. And even dems who voted no are in trouble because it is known that their presence as part of the majority helped Nancy and friends get it done.
    http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf

    And here is just the tip of the iceberg of problems this bill has from Reason people, who are hardly your usual wingnuts.
    http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/23/reasontv-3-reasons-health-care

  •   Chaz     0   Posted 1492 days ago 

    "I feel very good about almost all of it. I am not completely comfortable with everyone being forced to have health insurance, but I would love to hear the long term plan and reasoning for that provision."//

    Of course not, because they shouldn't have the power to mandate that. If you're trying to understand the reasoning behind it, it's to ensure that pre-existing conditions are covered. Everyone HAS to have it. If not, I could just wait until I GET cancer, and THEN buy insurance because they'd have to cover me. Get it? You can't guarantee pre-existing conditions are covered fairly unless EVERYONE has to have insurance.

    As far as all the opposition, try and understand that the common critiques are not exactly leveled against the bill as it stands today. The scares about rationing, gov't takeover, etc. are real, but not directly caused by the bill itself. The anti-Obamacare arguments that seem like nonsense will only be valid once the economic stipulations of this bill force the health insurance companies out of business in five years. At that point we all will have bought it. Additionally, the first negative effects of the bill won't be felt until early next year (after mid-terms) and the collapse of the new system (private companies + this bill) won't happen until after the next presidential election.

  •   Chaz     0   Posted 1492 days ago 

    You know? If you say this isn't a gov't takeover you're right, but this bill makes that an inevitable situation a few years down the road.

  •   hotspringer     0   Posted 1488 days ago 

    My initial query was what is at the core of the revolt against the health care bill. Frank Rich in today's New York Time's addresses what he this the central issue is:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?src=me&ref=general

    The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

    "...In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

    If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from."

    Yup.

  •   humidhaney     0   Posted 1488 days ago 

    Yup.

  •   Chaz     0   Posted 1488 days ago 

    Well, I guess you can make the healthcare debate about that if you want. People on both sides are doing it, but there ARE other issues other than racism/sexism, etc.

  •   humidhaney     +1   Posted 1488 days ago 

    Yup.