Mister Tee wrote:Anyway, I know there's alot of noise out there, and some of the rhetoric is quite scary. But I think too often we forget that the election last Fall happened, that we do have a Democratic (if not dependably progressive) majority, and that our worst fears are not likely to be realized in such an environment.
This administration sure seems to have forgotten that, much like congress did two years ago. Obama is ready to concede 'public option':
The last time when I discussed the American health care system on this board, it was Akash who suggested to me that it was business interests who were driving up the cost of health care. There may be a grain of truth in that theory, but I think it misses the point. Business interests are powerful in almost every country of the world (although Americans sometimes think otherwise), and they are powerful not only in the health care sector, but in almost every sector. So it would be difficult to explain why is it that only in one specific sector of a specific country are the costs spiralling so much.
Also, I don't fully believe the theory that Americans are more conservative than Europeans in this regard. If the cost of health care in Europe was spiralling the same way as it is in the United States, and European governments would introduce reforms to cut costs and, for example, to extend public health care to illegal immigrants (who are not covered by public health care in all European countries), there would be similar protests in Europe. (Incidentally, wasn't Greece one of the last countries in Europe to adopt a universal governmental health care system?)
The difference in this respect is that the American health care reformers have, so to speak, painted themselves into a corner. Reformers in Europe and Canada, for most part, have achieved the objectives they set out for themselves in the 1950s, and they have no further need to challenge the status quo, while the American reformers have not yet reached their old objectives, and they still feel that further reform is necessary. The traditional response that social reformers have had to any criticism is that any imaginable problems in their plans can be solved by throwing more money at it. That road, however, seems to be blocked for health care reformers in the United States, at least for the moment.
The United States might be the world pioneer in everything, from technology to show business, but regarding health care it must be one of the most backward nations in the world.
For all their anti-government rhetoric, Americans it seems to me that have created a bureaucratic nightmare which leaves a lot to be desired in the area of efficiency and cost control.
I'm astounded also by the ease with which the people believe even the most outrageous accusations against the current plans. That shows to me that despite their misgivings about the status quo, deep inside them Americans are as conservative and afraid of change as they were 20 years ago. They are just looking for excuses, no matter how ridiculous they are.
Well, most of the rise in cost can be directly attributed to the Insurance Industry, the Healthcare industry and the drug companies. The drug companies need to pay for their multi-billion dollar ad buys. The insurance industry needs to make its investors money and the healthcare industry has tons of doctors to take care of as well as (here comes another insurance industry jab) increased premiums for malpractice. Of course, this last one is just as big a fault of the sue-happy populace of the country.
But, what they really need is competition. If there is good quality competition at lower prices, the health care industry and associated special interest groups would have to lower their costs to compete. It's why the drug companies have fought for years to prohibit purchase of drugs from Canada as it drives down their prices in the U.S.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Heksagon wrote:It appears to me that the Democratic Party is mainly trying to expand the scope of the present health care framework, rather than trying to actually "reform" the existing framework.
That's pretty much the crux of it. Cut cost by cutting down on the overhead, which makes sense.
With all the flack they're getting just for wanting to do that, there might be actual blood in the streets if they went for a complete overhaul.
Well, what I have been wondering is whether it is possible to significantly cut costs without a major overhaul. The cost of health care in the United States has been rising very rapidly, and I just find it hard to believe that it could be changed by the relatively minor tweaks which the Democrats are offering.
The Obama team believed (most think correctly) that the biggest Clinton mistake in 93/'94 was trying to dictate legislation from the White House, stepping on the ego-inflated toes of the Congressional barons. Thus, they set out a general statement of principles, and let the Congress come up with the details. This approach has obviously had its own flaws, partly from the general mess that is Congress, but more particularly the make-up of the Senate Finance Committee and its less-than-progressive chairman Max Baucus. All the other committees working on bills have reported them out to the floor (something, it might be pointed out, that in the last 60 years has never happened with the sole exception of the Medicare/Medicaid bills during the lopsidedly Dem '56-'66 Congress), but Baucus has been deferring over and over to GOPers like Grassley and Enzi whose motives are questionable to put it mildly.
The reason the White House wanted an August deadline was to head off what Sonic references: that Dems are forced to defend against a bill that doesn't technically, exist. Now that they see the results, it appears the rest of the Dems have had it with Baucus, and are going to force him to kick the Pubs to the curb by early September to get something through the committee.
And once it gets through, it all comes down to the conference. There are many passionate supporters of the public option, and I think they'll force at least some version of it into the final bill. The question then becomes, for the Blue Dogs and the "centrist" Senators (I use quotes because, though the press will always designate them such, they are in fact well to the right of mainstream American opinion), not will they vote for the final proposal -- some will certainly vote against -- but will they take part in a filibuster that denies a straight vote and kills a publicly-popular proposal by a president of their own party? My guess is, in the end, enough of them won't, and we'll have some solid version of health care reform this year.
To watch cable TV, you'd think the town hall brownshirts were swinging the debate decisively rightward, but I have my doubts about that. I think the tactics have been so transparently over the top and so full of falsehoods that they're having much the same effect as the Palin rallies last Fall -- they're making people with tepid objections to Obama's plan line up behind him for fear of being identified with the loonies. The ludicrous "death panel" canard is so self-evidently false that even the press has been mostly calling it so -- though of course they usually "balance" it with some minor mistake in something a Dem has said so they can cling to their precious "Both sides do it" formulation. Do they not realize that as long as they hold to that stance, there will always be a massive advantage to the side most willing to lie? Do they understand that, no matter what they do, they'll never win over the eliminationist right, but they're now permanently alienating the only audience thye've ever had?
Anyway, I know there's alot of noise out there, and some of the rhetoric is quite scary. But I think too often we forget that the election last Fall happened, that we do have a Democratic (if not dependably progressive) majority, and that our worst fears are not likely to be realized in such an environment. Whatever you're hearing on TV.
Heksagon wrote:It appears to me that the Democratic Party is mainly trying to expand the scope of the present health care framework, rather than trying to actually "reform" the existing framework.
That's pretty much the crux of it. Cut cost by cutting down on the overhead, which makes sense.
With all the flack they're getting just for wanting to do that, there might be actual blood in the streets if they went for a complete overhaul.
I have been trying to follow the health care reform, but it isn't so easy. The topic interests me, but it's difficult to find information on it. It is easy to find a lot of unbiased research on things like business cycles and economic history, if you are prepared to dig deeper than columns at New York Times, but on health care, such material doesn't seem to be available, at least not so easily. Most of the stuff that I can find is on very specialized topics, or too focused on how a policy should work, rather than how it does work, and almost invariably, only dealing with one country, rather than comparing systems in different countries. There is, however, no shortage of partisan propaganda, but that is another matter.
The discussion that I have been following gives me the impression that both sides of the debate are completely insane. However, this may be because I cannot properly make the difference between rhetoric and actual policy. Some of partisans of the Democratic Party, in their rhetoric, criticize the American health care system by implying that the European health care systems work better; yet the Democratic Party, in its policy, is not offering anything like the health care that exists in Europe, other than the extremely vague principle that all people should be somehow covered. The Republicans, in turn, accuse the Democrats for trying to introduce European-style health care systems to United States.
It appears to me that the Democratic Party is mainly trying to expand the scope of the present health care framework, rather than trying to actually "reform" the existing framework. Is the Obama reform somehow similar to the one which Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts some years ago?
As a European, I have grown up to believe that the American health care system is very much like Michael Moore portrays it in Sicko. However, I no longer believe that to be the case; there are problems everywhere, and the fact is that a film like Sicko could be done in almost any country of the world. In fact, one of the reasons why it is so difficult to reform the American health care system is that the majority of Americans are satisfied with the health care they are receiving.
The health care systems in Europe and United States are very different, and they are driven by different philosophies. I do not know how sensible it is even trying to compare them.
cam wrote:We are following the struggle for universal health care in the US, as we live with it. When you need it, it is there and cheap, or free. I would rather be taxed for health care than anything else.
I would really like to know : how many of you support Obama's policy, and how many are opposed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Cam, but isn't the Canadian system of universal health care single payer, i.e. the government?
What Obama proposes is universal in coverage but not in payer - he wants to retain the current system of private insurers but add a government funded option that will pay for itself unlike Medicare which doesn't. How this is to be done is what is open for debate. The problem is that a lot of the Congress, almost all Republicans, but some Democrats as well, have their campaigns funded in large measure by the all-powerful insurance and drug industries. In the end we may get a bill in which the insurance companies are mandated not to deny coverage and other things that Obama wants done, but the public option may not go through.
If is does go through, I'm not at all sure I would take advantage of it. I like my HMO. If, however, I move out of the HMO's coverage area, I may just want to be able to choose a government run option - it all depends on what's in it.
Obama got off on the wrong foot, I think, by appealing mostly to people's compassion and emphasizing that what we need to do most is insure that the 5% of the country without any insurance is covered. Unfortunately most of the 95% that are covered don't give a damn about the 5% who aren't.
Obama is now changing his focus to appeal to that 95% by saying what we need to do is to lower the cost for existing insured as well, and to guarantee that those who are insured remain insured when they move or change jobs and are not denied coverage for pre-existing conditions they may or may not know they have.
The Republicans, more than ever, are the party of "no" so if health care reform is going to happen, which it needs to, it will be without the Republicans unless public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of the final bill, whatever it turns out to be, so that they are shamed into voting for it to save their own political necks.
Despite the support of the American Medical Association, the nurses' union, the AARP and other well regarded groups, the fearmongers and their tools including that idiot former Alaska governor who can see Russia from her house, have been fueling public opinion against change by falsely claiming that one of the bills supports the use of death panels that will determine whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma depending on how much her treatments cost.
The yelling and screaming by the insurance company tools/fools at these town hall meetings and not allowing the opposition to speak, have rightly, I think, been compared to tactics used by the Nazis in their rise to power but its not nice to call your fellow Americans Nazis so most liberal politicians including Obama are so far, anyway, biting their tongues. But as Abraham Lincoln famously said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
He does have a website now, that supposedly debunks a lot of the criticism leveled at the plan, but since it's a white house-sponsored page, the right wingers aren't about to let it stand as any kind of corrective tool.
My problem with these protestors is that they can very easily fix the issue: If you don't have a valid license showing that you are a citizen of the community in which the Town Hall occurs, you can't get in the door. It's that simple. For valid citizens only!
But, although I don't care for my own state after it's support of Neanderthal Bush and his shapeshifting follow up McCain, I did hear that Claire McCaskill's town hall held up state went by without such outbursts, so there's something to be said for restraint...and maybe she should give some tips to her colleagues on how to appropriately stage one of these town halls.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't think anybody can truly answer that, because I don't think anyone truly knows what Obama's health policy is. We have an 1,100 page bill to contend with, and it's not the only bill out there. Because of that, propagandists with their own agendas can put their own interpretations of what's in it, and who's the wiser? I think the town hall disruptions are appalling, but a lot of the blame has to be put on Obama himself. For someone so allegedly in touch with the people, he's done an atrocious job communicating his health care plan.
We are following the struggle for universal health care in the US, as we live with it. When you need it, it is there and cheap, or free. I would rather be taxed for health care than anything else.
I would really like to know : how many of you support Obama's policy, and how many are opposed?
This is almost impossible to believe even after seeing it. A little while before Obama is scheduled to appear at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, the authorities allow a man with a gun strapped to his leg to remain on church property nearby.
