Change Libs Cannot Believe In

Winter_123

Guru
5000 Post Club
2,908
The article in the link here answers the question we have all been asking ourselves lately:: What is the difference between Harry Reid and a doughnut?

Eventually some type of watered-down bill will pass and the dems will declare victory becuase they are very wisely going to follow Clinton's advice which is to take half a loaf or be voted out. However, if you go to change.org you will see the libs are having a hard time putting a pretty face on it. Just read the first paragraph of the article on the public option, and you can see that "victory" is all in the behind of the holder. In eyes of the left, Prince Harry has committed a most anus crime.

(It is is only 5 in the morning so I dont have the attention span to read the article below the one on the public option but I gotta believe iit is pink. It is on health reform and climate change.......sheeesh!

Health Care | Change.org
 
Last edited:
The ultimate goal is to regulate the health insurance companies out of existence. Many Democrats, including Frank & Dean (sounds like a 60's band), have already admitted this. This bill, as I understand it (and I hope I have some of this wrong), still accomplishes that:

It does very little to stop or reverse the surging costs of care, which (obviously) is the biggest problem in the system right now.

It requires Guaranteed Issue for all health insurance, so the risk pool that insurers have to deal with will be far more costly to administer.

It gives the federal bureaucracy the ability to impose arbitrary price controls on the industry, squeezing profits into oblivion with the stroke of a pen.

It incentivizes the healthy to drop out of the system, by allowing them to exit when (not if) premiums are too high and pay a smaller "penalty", polluting the existing risk pool even further.

Quite a combination, not to mention other crippling regulation that we don't know about yet. The result? Private insurance companies' costs of doing business will explode at the same time their ability to generate consistent revenue will be strangled.

Doomsday? Nope. It will depend on the elections of 2010 and 2012.

Bottom line, I would not get too excited about the "death" of the public option.

...
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, I would not get too excited about the "death" of the public option.

...

Oh, I certainly am not. As discussed ad nauseum, I think those who think in terms of six month timelines are all set. Three years is a completely different story and six years will look like La-La Land. Nothing is going away regardless of what passes and does not pass in the current time frame. The true gain here for the dems is that the responsibility and oversight of health care has been federalized and over time any blanks can and will be filled in year after year. This is contrary to the view of some who approach it as a matter of just seeing "what passes" and getting through the knothole to go back and work with where we end out for the next decade. There will always be legislation pending for the rest of our born days. Just as in Canada and the UK. The gain for the Republicans here is to slow it down enough to that the reality of what people want versus what is affordable can have some chance to set in. If they use that time and opportunity well then that will help. If they sit back on their asses and just see what Olympia Snowe does or does not do and complain about it with no well defined and articulated Plan B then we will just keep on keeping on.

Having said that, for those who prefer to see the process slowed at least a little, I think the defeat of a full government run public option helps, even if to your point, one should not get too excited.

My view anyway. Most likely I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Nothing is going away regardless of what passes and does not pass in the current time frame. The true gain here for the dems is that the responsibility and oversight of health care has been federalized and over time any blanks can and will be filled in year after year.


Bingo.


...
 
the libs are having a hard time putting a pretty face on it.


Almost like "putting lipstick on a pig?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It requires Guaranteed Issue for all health insurance, so the risk pool that insurers have to deal with will be far more costly to administer.
...


I will ask a 3rd party this question.
What is the point of expanding medicare to age 55, whether the people involved are gimps or not if they are going to, and i still do not believe it, pull off enacting GI?
 
Last edited:
And now this:

Senate health care bill to allow benefit caps, Democratic aides say - CNN.com

Good Lord, what's this going to really end up looking like? Sounds like not much change at all.

Me likey lots.
"O.K., by the numbers. We've totally gotten in over our heads; we ain't gonna get away with it ... how can we still claim victory and save face?"

Say goodnight Barry.

I love this lil sniptet. -

"We do have no lifetime caps, and we put in there no unreasonable annual caps," he said.

What do unreasonable mean?

Now I'm gonna aggrivate myself for a couple of minutes and read a few of the mensa society members blog responses.


Ron Paul 2012 - champion of the constitution - time to defederalize.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bingo.
...

So, your thought is that "federalization" of healthcare is a goal sought by both parties?
That is to say, if the pubs get going here in 2010 and then further in 2012 that they won't put the kabosh on any existing or pending legistlation scheduled for 2014?
 
Last edited:
So, your thought is that "federalization" of healthcare is a goal sought by both parties?

That is to say, if the pubs get going here in 2010 and then further in 2012 that they won't put the kabosh on any existing or pending legistlation scheduled for 2014?


Boy, that's tough to say. The problem here is that Bush & Co. couldn't control themselves either, although Obama is in an all-new league. So I'm not convinced the GOP has the cajones to do much of anything resembling legitimate fiscal conservatism.

Could the Republicans do anything to turn this around? I'm a little doubtful, plus there's no way they'll have enough votes for a while (if ever).

The GOP's only hope is signficant gains in 2010 and White House victory in 2012. Then we'd see.

This ain't pretty, that's for sure.

...
 
Boy, that's tough to say. The problem here is that Bush & Co. couldn't control themselves either, although Obama is in an all-new league. So I'm not convinced the GOP has the cajones to do much of anything resembling legitimate fiscal conservatism.

Could the Republicans do anything to turn this around? I'm a little doubtful, plus there's no way they'll have enough votes for a while (if ever).

The GOP's only hope is signficant gains in 2010 and White House victory in 2012. Then we'd see.

This ain't pretty, that's for sure.

...

I agree, it is a tough call.
If you put a gun to my head; and I had to answer correctly or else, at this point, I'd have to wager that the b*tch'n by the public will continue, the politicos will try to look like heroes, and the ins. companies will be villanized publicly while deals are cut privately. You know B.A.U.
Business as usual.
This country is headed for a rude awakening. The dollar will be devalued and hyperinflated, other countries are soon gonna stop buying our debt. which needs to be liquidated so that the free markets can correct themselves. The problem of course is no party wants to be in office during that correction, cause they'll be blamed for it. This is bad because as Albert Einstein said, "the greastest force in the universe is compounding." That's what we are doing to our economy, compounding the problem.

Ron Paul 2012 - Champion of the constitution - time to defederalize
 
Last edited:
. This is bad because as Albert Alstein said, "the greastest force in the universe is compounding." That's what we are doing to our economy, compounding the problem.

Albert Alstein? Wasn't he Al's roommate in college.
 
Back
Top