Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[Elphaba]

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Elphaba. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

And for the record I have not now, nor have I ever, defended George Bush's use of the term "nuculaaaar".

What about "misunderestimated"? Speaking of "plants," I've planted the word into three posts now, and no one has caught on.

I'm sure I wouldn't either in someone else's post. I got stupid the last few years.

Elph

[Elphaba]

Where was all this "ZOMG people are saying the Prezident is a Nazi!!!!!" outrage when protesters were putting swastikas on pictures of Bush?

I forgot to ask in my last post to you: What does ZOMG mean?

Elph

[Palerider]

A message to my favorite Liberal......watch out... I am part of an angry Mob.........

[Dravin]

Why did conservatives get furious when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, but did not when Bush actually held his hand?

Facetious: He was just helping him cross the street!

Okay, more serious. Is holding hands considered a subservient act? Because my understanding is people were talking the "The US flag... er I mean President dips for no earthly king" line to offense. Not that I think such a route to offense is reasonable, personally I don't have objections to what he did, but are bowing and hand holding equivalent acts of subservience? If they are I doubt they are perceived as such and thus the disconnect.

[ferretrunner]

who the poster who got the origons of the stimulis bill wrong or the Pres?????

Yeah, the stimulus bail out was passed under George Bush. And, typically, the next President inherits the mess and gets the blame.

I disagree with many of President Obama's decisions. But, I also don't see him pushing much of anything through the democrat held house and senate. If anything, the democrats aren't doing much of anything. As compared to republicans in similiar power balances. I think a large part of the problem is President Obama is just not experienced enough. It will be interesting to see what decisions he makes about Iraq/ Afghanistan.

[Elphaba]

A message to my favorite Liberal......watch out... I am part of an angry Mob.........

Oh pish posh. You don't have an angry bone in your body. Maybe a furious liver, but not any bones.

Elph

[Elphaba]

1- DEMS: part of everyones taxes pays for the poor' basic medical costs and some of the middle class medical cost.

2- . . . . Plus they want a full 'users pay' system where the wealthy pay for the best coverage and the poor who can't afford insurance, or someone denied coverage, go and pray in church for divine intervention when they get sick.

Republicans want to help the poor, not make them pray for divine intervention. They just disagree with the Democrats as to how to do that.

Elphaba

[unixknight]

I forgot to ask in my last post to you: What does ZOMG mean?

Elph

It's kind of an Internet meme... kind of evolved up form typing out "oh, my gosh!" to "OMG" to "ZOMG!" I'm not sure exactly why the 'Z' got into it but it seems to be there for emphasis.

Kinda like spelling "the" as "teh" or "evil" as "ebil." People do it in purpose as a form of satire, as in "ZOMG teh Internetz is da ebil!"

And now I must wallow in shame that I, a 35-year-old software developer have allowed myself to succumb to the temptation to use this Internet slang.

[*]Started a war with another country for concocted reasons, which did not hold up under scrutiny.

I wouldn't agree that the reasons were concocted, as the breaking of the Treaty that ended Desert Storm was justification enough, IMHO.

[*]Deceived the American public about how badly the war was going. He insisted we were victorious. Additionally, his chief military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, argued that the United States was making “very, very good progress” just two days before the more credible U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned that a civil war was possible in Iraq.

Politics. I have nothing intelligent to say about that.

[*]Gave artificial government statistics to measure progress in the war in Iraq. This included saying that fewer US personnel were dying than was true.

I don't know enough about this to comment.

[*]Initially used excessive force in counterinsurgency warfare instead of a plan to win hearts and minds.

That strikes me as a matter of opinion.

[*]Refused to listen to experts who knew that ousting Hussein would cause the centuries-old rift between Sunni and Shii’a to explode.

I wouldn't agree that it's exploded. Most of the insurgent violence in Iraq is still against U.S. Forces.

[*]Approved the use of torture and put Cheney in charge of the program, though Cheney did not tell him everything, and he did not ask.

I have a severe problem with this, and I do speak out on it. I'm always disappointed when other Conservatives don't. (And yes, Mr. Hannity... Waterboarding IS torture.)

[*]Held hands with the Saudi Arabian king.

Why did conservatives get furious when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, but did not when Bush actually held his hand?

Because in the West, a bow symbolizes submission, and the American President must bow to NO ONE, just as the American Flag is never dipped to another.

Finally, because Bush misunderestimated the meaning of a gazillion words, he rarely spoke in accurate and complete sentences. Where was the outrage about that?! :p

Hehe I like Bush-isms.

I can sort of understand Conservatives not bringing attention to that, though... Because Bush opponents used that as an excuse to characterize him as stupid. This perception was exacerbated by the fact that GWB came after a President who was a VERY good speaker. In fact, Bush's grades from college were much higher than Kerry's. He was just a tragically poor speaker.

Edited October 29, 2009 by unixknight
Replying to both posts

[Charlyc]

Republicans want to help the poor, not make them pray for divine intervention. They just disagree with the Democrats as to how to do that.

Elphaba

Really?? Because their actions never matched the rhetoric. They had both houses and the white house for several years and did nothing about healthcare, no freeing up the market, no ending preconditions clause etc. They did make sure that Halliburton got their contracts in Iraq though and they let oil go through the roof -something which hurt the entire world and then they blamed it on the Chinese. Anyways.....

But as an outsider, who is more than happy to stay here in Auz by the way, I go through forums like this and just end up feeling sorry for you guys. You seem to have no idea what basic health care requires. Nor do you realize that the homeless guy who catches TB will only pass that TB onto you. Plus there are some really wild people in this debate (in townhall meetings and the like). I mean calling obama or the speaker nazi? or socialists? drawing Hitler mows on them? Goodness, its almost as bad as when McCain presented that immigration reform package before the election when GOP voters went ballistic! Again those GOP voters....

The question I had at first was why so many US LDS are aligned with the GOP and it seems that its because of a) issues like abortion and gay marriage b) that Reagan rhetoric (that never really became reality). So because the pro-lifers are on the GOP side mormons go with the GOP and swallow all the other BS they spit out no matter how illegal or criminal, like that Iraq invasion!! And then that freedom small government talk, which never eventuated, since your government has only grown since the '60s...and on and on it goes...

I would humbly suggest you look closely at all the GOP party platform and see that very little is actually aligned with LDS ideology so you really need a new party, maybe a conservative democrats wing or 'The Mountain Party'? Yeap that would do it 'The New Mountain Party'

[Charlyc]

I think this is a valid point. However, where was your (collective your) anger when Bush did the following;

• Held hands with the Saudi Arabian king.

Why did conservatives get furious when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, but did not when Bush actually held his hand?

Because they're OK with Conservative Gayness? Its the hollywood type gayness they'll condemn.

[Moksha]

Because in the West, a bow symbolizes submission, ...

I thought it was wearing a handkerchief with a triangle on it in your back pocket.

[Gatorman]

Because, holding hands in the middle east is a sign of friendship, not gayness...Our American stereotypes just don't fly around the rest of the world.

[Just_A_Guy]

Really?? Because their actions never matched the rhetoric. They had both houses and the white house for several years and did nothing about healthcare, no freeing up the market, no ending preconditions clause etc. They did make sure that Halliburton got their contracts in Iraq though and they let oil go through the roof -something which hurt the entire world and then they blamed it on the Chinese. Anyways.....

Because inaction in the legislature translates into a positive, universal lack of action. Right?

Besides--are you trying to say that the Republican Senate should have done with a one-vote majority what the Democratic Senate can't seem to do with a nine-vote majority?

[Charlyc]

Because, holding hands in the middle east is a sign of friendship, not gayness...Our American stereotypes just don't fly around the rest of the world.

So your saying that Bush capitulated to the Saudis' cultural practices? just like bowing to a King?

[Charlyc]

Because inaction in the legislature translates into a positive, universal lack of action. Right?

Besides--are you trying to say that the Republican Senate should have done with a one-vote majority what the Democratic Senate can't seem to do with a nine-vote majority?

They could have changed a lot with that 1 vote majority, plus they could've lobbied some help from a few then Dems like Lieberman. Romney did it in MA in just, about, 2 years. Arni in CA also made some improvements in a short time, both GOP men with opposing Dem legislatures (and different plans)

This democratic senate has only started working on this, what 4-5 months ago? After 6 years of stalemate you could argue this point imho.

[Just_A_Guy]

They could have changed a lot with that 1 vote majority,

The Repubs' experience with Social Security reform indicates that most Congressional Democrats were more interested in seeing the Republicans fail on that issue than in implementing meaningful reform. What makes you think a Republican-led health care reform effort would have gone differently?

If you're trying to talk about what the Republicans "could have" done, you're going to have to get a lot more specific than just saying "but . . . but . . . they were the majority!" You can start by demonstrating a) that the votes were there for the following proposals, and b) that the Democratic Senate leaders would not have filibustered said proposals:

1. Tort reform

2. Allowing sale of insurance across state lines.

3. Requirements for more straightforward pricing schemes that could be given to patience in advance of treatment.

Romney did it in MA in just, about, 2 years. Arni in CA also made some improvements in a short time, both GOP men with opposing Dem legislatures (and different plans)

I see Schwarzeneggar supporting reform back in '07 on the statewide level, but I don't see anything actually being done. Have you any links that provide more detail?

Romney essentially accomplished MA by making compromises that most conservatives were unprepared to make then or now. Democrats are naturally very happy to work with Republicans in implementing liberal policies.

[Charlyc]

The Repubs' experience with Social Security reform indicates that most Congressional Democrats were more interested in seeing the Republicans fail on that issue than in implementing meaningful reform. What makes you think a Republican-led health care reform effort would have gone differently?

Republicans tried to push SS onto the private market (in summary), that's why it failed. Healthcare was already private though and the attempt was to go the other way so maybe some dems could've got onboard, but we'll never know now.

If you're trying to talk about what the Republicans "could have" done, you're going to have to get a lot more specific than just saying "but . . . but . . . they were the majority!" You can start by demonstrating a) that the votes were there for the following proposals, and b) that the Democratic Senate leaders would not have filibustered said proposals:

1. Tort reform

2. Allowing sale of insurance across state lines.

3. Requirements for more straightforward pricing schemes that could be given to patience in advance of treatment.

Well you have a valid point there because the votes certainly weren't there for tort reform. But a decent majority lead campaign could have, I believe, changed selling across state lines (which I thought was unconstitutional anyway, but I'm an outsider looking in so maybe I'm wrong there) and possibly your 3. But it does take a campaign with the right leadership skills to get it down. Done correctly you could even have gained political points from a democratic filibuster. Why? because its the right thing to do and the voters would have seen that in the long run. (By the way the proposed health exchange & insurance compacts partially solves the state lines limitation anyway)

Now Romney is a good example of a GOP man getting things done. Sure a lot of the plan was dems work, like, I think from memory, birth control for 97 year olds or something just as ridiculous that the they put in, but it was an improvement of what was there before. Then the next 'improvements' could be closer to what you guys actually want, because MA does have problems with its plan, but it comes in steps. You will never get a full rightwing agenda through because there just aren't enough voters. But doing nothing seems to have been the default position of the GOP , and today you can see the consequences of that flawed strategy.

Schwarzenegger? Yea, he only proposed a plan, but then again he also supports anti-global warming campaigns AND they say he is morphing into a democrat...so, you're right but...

[Elphaba]

Really?? Because their actions never matched the rhetoric. They had both houses and the white house for several years and did nothing about healthcare, no freeing up the market, no ending preconditions clause etc. They did make sure that Halliburton got their contracts in Iraq though and they let oil go through the roof -something which hurt the entire world and then they blamed it on the Chinese. Anyways.....

But as an outsider, who is more than happy to stay here in Auz by the way, I go through forums like this and just end up feeling sorry for you guys. You seem to have no idea what basic health care requires. Nor do you realize that the homeless guy who catches TB will only pass that TB onto you. Plus there are some really wild people in this debate (in townhall meetings and the like). I mean calling obama or the speaker nazi? or socialists? drawing Hitler mows on them? Goodness, its almost as bad as when McCain presented that immigration reform package before the election when GOP voters went ballistic! Again those GOP voters....

I actually agree with you on all of this.

I just don't think Republicans, as people, are so unconcerned about people's health that they expect someone to just pray about it.

Elphaba

[Charlyc]

Oh, by the way, this site has some decent answers, albeit from the lefts point of view

Wonk Room Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support The House Health Bill

[Charlyc]

expect someone to just pray about it.

Elphaba

The 'go pray' was tongue in cheek .

Seriously its that they will claim that its a lifestyle choice to not have insurance, or "why should I pay for their medical costs" etc etc.

GOP voters seem to me to be ok with charity as long as they control who it goes to and how much is given but especially as long as the government isn't charitable. Point is that somethings simply can't be done by anyone else other than the biggest enterprise in a country, ie defense, customs, universal basic health care.....etc takes time and generations to pass these things over to the private sector as nuclear power plants are a good example off

[Just_A_Guy]

Republicans tried to push SS onto the private market (in summary), that's why it failed. Healthcare was already private though and the attempt was to go the other way so maybe some dems could've got onboard, but we'll never know now.

But that could alternately, and equally validly, be written as "the Republican Social Security reform effort failed because the Dems didn't like the way the Republicans were going about it." As you say, we can't know whether the Dems would've gotten on board with any other Republican effort. Should the Repubs have stuck out their necks anyways? (More on this below).

Well you have a valid point there because the votes certainly weren't there for tort reform. But a decent majority lead campaign could have, I believe, changed selling across state lines (which I thought was unconstitutional anyway, but I'm an outsider looking in so maybe I'm wrong there) and possibly your 3.

Selling across state lines is very constitutional. :-) Federal regulation prohibiting such practices is also constitutional under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. In this case, though, I think the barrier to interstate competition is that each state requires an insurance carrier to be licensed by that state's own authority. I would hazard to guess that constitutionally, the federal government can't (or at least, shouldn't) *make* the states give up that authority. But they can persuade the states to voluntarily cede that authority by dangling certain carrots.

But it does take a campaign with the right leadership skills to get it down. Done correctly you could even have gained political points from a democratic filibuster. Why? because its the right thing to do and the voters would have seen that in the long run. (By the way the proposed health exchange & insurance compacts partially solves the state lines limitation anyway)

Fixing Social Security should have been the "moral victory" in the long term as well - and may yet be; because you know Obama's going to want to grow the program in the next eight years, and the best way to do it is by telling people it's in crisis, and when that happens he and his fellow Democrats will have a lot of explaining to do regarding their "everything's fine" rhetoric from 2005. But in the short run, it hasn't done the Republicans a lot of good; because the opposing minority was able to play on the relative complexity of the plan in order to make the pubic misinterpret--and then fear--what the White House and the congressional majority were trying to do. (Sound familiar? )

Now Romney is a good example of a GOP man getting things done. Sure a lot of the plan was dems work, like, I think from memory, birth control for 97 year olds or something just as ridiculous that the they put in, but it was an improvement of what was there before. Then the next 'improvements' could be closer to what you guys actually want, because MA does have problems with its plan, but it comes in steps. You will never get a full rightwing agenda through because there just aren't enough voters. But doing nothing seems to have been the default position of the GOP , and today you can see the consequences of that flawed strategy.

Romney basically accepted the fact that he couldn't get meaningful health care reform in Massachusetts unless he gave the Dems what they wanted. Applying this to the federal scale in the 108th and 109th Congresses, we're back to the question of whether the Dems would have gone along with anything less than the types of reforms that are now under consideration. I submit that, in the political climate of the day, the Republicans were justified in electing not to tilt at that particular windmill.

(Incidentally, isn't it fun how when Romney was running for Pres the Republicans thought RomneyCare was the best thing since sliced bread and the Dems thought it was a goshawful mess--and now the relative positions both parties on RomneyCare have pretty much flopped?)

[Just_A_Guy]

GOP voters seem to me to be ok with charity as long as they control who it goes to and how much is given but especially as long as the government isn't charitable.

Well, on that point we aren't so far apart. Both of us believe that the people should supervise charitable giving. It's just that you apparently think the people can best supervise it via their elected representatives, who control the enterprise. Conservatives believe that competing charities will be forced to streamline their processes than would a government monopoly; and so a donated dollar will ultimately give the donor more bang for his buck.

Point is that somethings simply can't be done by anyone else other than the biggest enterprise in a country, ie defense, customs, universal basic health care.....etc takes time and generations to pass these things over to the private sector as nuclear power plants are a good example off

But is health care one of those things? The stories we hear from the NHS aren't reassuring. And it isn't just the Republican hit pieces. Take, for example, this video (which was discussed on lds.net here). The guy mentions something very interesting: he says he suffers from sciatica, and his (presumably NHS) doctor advised him to sleep on the floor.

WTF(etch)? Here in the US, my brother-in-law was diagnosed with sciatica six months ago. Had it surgically corrected about a month ago, and could have done four months before that if his own schedule had allowed.

But in the UK, apparently this guy's doctor can only tell him to sleep on the floor.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, by the way, this site has some decent answers, albeit from the lefts point of view

Wonk Room Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support The House Health Bill

But there's some significant misdirection in the very first item of the link you gave. It claims the House bill will reduce the deficit as per Republican wishes. Behind the spin: what really happens is that the House bill increases the deficit in the first ten years, and reduces the deficit after that because the next ten years of the program aren't projected to cost as much as the first ten years .

Now, that claim itself, sets off my bunk detector. Can you name one universal health care system whose second-decade costs were less than its first-decade costs?

But I'll go with it for a minute. Let's put this same kind of logic into a domestic context:

"Honey, if I buy a boat, yeah; it'll put us another $5,000-per-year into the hole for ten years. But after that, it'll be paid off and our annual deficit spending will be reduced. So the boat is reducing our deficit. Really!!!"

[ferretrunner]

Strange that you would say such a thing, because all of the urologists I know would say exactly what President Obama said. In fact, the standard practice would be to put the 105 year old lady as low priority on the transplant list. If a kidney became available and it didn’t provide a match for anyone higher up on the list, then she is welcome to it. However, her position on the waiting list will be extremely low primarily because of her age. It’s also important to remember that transplantation is a brutal procedure. Many transplant patients are advised to reduce their activity for 1 – 2 years following the transplant while the body learns to accept the new organ. While all this is taking place, heavy immunosuppressants are administered to prevent the body from rejecting the organ. This leaves the patient susceptible to all sorts of illness and disease. Under these conditions, it is highly unlikely that a woman 105 years of age would ever return to anything like her pre-transplant level of activity or health.

It amuses me that you would rant and rave about how ignorant and irresponsible liberal members of Congress are and then hide behind them to justify your point. And yes, being someone that works in healthcare, investigates procedural and medical decisions, and looks for ways to improve health care administration for each patient, yeah, I’d say I have a little more knowledge in the topic than your average American. Without hesitation, I’d say I have more knowledge than you do.

Living wills are end-of-life care paperwork are not euthanasia as you would put it. Saying that these documents are euthanasia is as ignorant as saying that Hospice care is euthanasia. Let’s actually look at what Obama proposed. He proposed that at about age 60 or 65, each patient would be required to complete paperwork specifying how doctors should respond if the patient is in a medical crisis and unable to communicate their desires to their doctors. This paperwork would be updated every five years.

This has a couple of advantages. 1) the physicians can retrieve the documents in an emergency and provide treatment according to the patient’s wishes, whether that be to administer end-of-life care or to do everything possible to save the patient’s life at all costs. 2) the health care system doesn’t have to search out next of kin to get permission or instruction on how to proceed. The proposal was never to force end-of-life care on seniors. It was to make arrangements so that the decision would be made ahead of time, which prevents wasted time before treatment when an emergency arises.

You might also consider the fact that many health care systems are asking patients to fill these out routinely. When my wife and I pre-admitted to the hospital for the birth of our daughter, the hospital gave us the information on how to specify our wishes regarding end-of-life care. My wife was 27 years old at the time. Why is it so outrageous that we would ask 65 year old people—the group of people that, generally speaking, have the highest risk of death—to specify what course of action they would like physicians to take in a medical emergency?

Accuse me and others of drinking the kool-aid all you want, but you’ve got a pretty thick streak of red on your lip yourself.

Living Wills and medical directives are very common. IMO, everyone should have some paperwork in place indicating what they would like to have done in the case of extreme emergencies. Personally, if I am brain dead, I don't want to "live" connected to a machine. I'd rather be allowed to go. My family knows this and they have the documentation to make that decision if it ever becomes necessary. We get so afraid of death in the US and often try to keep ourselves or our loved ones going. I'm not for euthansia- that's a different concept. I do support hospice and informed choice.

[rameumptom]

Sadly, I must say that I rather agree with CharleyC on some of the concepts mentioned. The Bush period was not a good one for Republicans, overall, when it came to legislation.

Republicans became the group with no direction, as the old Reagan conservatives were replaced by neocons. Still, they DID move some progressive legislation through. No Child Left Behind, designed by Teddy Kennedy; and Prescription Drug plan for Seniors were both pushed through. So the concept of Republicans only offering a prayer is not quite exact.

That they could have come up with a Reagan-like solution to health care and education is not possible, because the Republican party has by-and-large left Reagan behind.

I've mentioned free market solutions to a lot of this stuff in the past. These are the things Reagan would have probably promoted today. Instead, we get layered bureaucracy from both Democrats and Republicans. It makes the federal government bigger, more powerful, and less efficient. And it costs hundreds of billions in waste, fraud and abuse

Did you know that if we just gave every family on welfare a check for $25,000 a year, we'd save over $300 billion a year on welfare overhead and abuse? And the families would get more benefit. Clearly something to think about.