Scott Brown and Health Reform

[Winter_123]

Interesting the way that he has made the national health reform debate one of the central pieces of his campaign but, to my knowledge, has never spoken out against the Massachusetts plan. His position seems to be just that the feds need to stay out of it and that Massachusetts has already taken care of business so should not be subsidizing other states or having taxes or higher premiums imposed upon them.

Can't tell whether he is somewhat happy with the Mass plan or whether he simply had to choose his battles and did not want to give the dems any ammunition. He is, after all, a moderate and only appears conservative because he is not a marxist like the current administration and Ted Kennedy. I just don't know the man, but I think he voted for the current Mass Health Program so I would keep that info in mind because it will be relevant at some point down the road if he wins. He is a moderate.

I do think he would be a good man on board if your goal is to stop Obamacare (a far, far left version of health reform). Thats probably realistic to expect from him. However, if your goal is to see him help put a silver stake through health reform so that it just goes away then you might end out seeing him as a turncoat down the road. All he has said is that he will vote to send it back to the drawing board. That is what Olympia said too. Some people see her as a turncoat for voting to even discuss the issue. Others see her as one of the primary obstacles to Obamacare because she has so much influence over moderates.You decide. Gonna have to make the same call about Scott Brown at some point, I suspect (if he wins of course, which is unknown). Personally, I will take about anything over marxism at this point so it is an easy call for me.

It's all about the economy anyway. People have learned to live with the fact that the health debate is going to go on incrementally forever. They dont have that same acceptance about the economy.

 

[Justin Bilyj]

Make no mistake, Scott has been courted by all the kingmakers, he is compromised. He will toe the "two party" dialect that stifles any real change or improvement.

 

[djs]

Ironically, I think Scott Brown has gotten peoples attention because of his stance on taxes, more than because of his stance on healthcare.

He did vote for the Mass plan, but he also articulates why the fed plan is BAD for people of Mass in the form of higher taxes for no additional benefit. Basically, they already pay their bill, now they will have to pay even MORE if the fed plan passes.

Tuesday will be interesting. Despite polls showing he is probably in the lead, and still with a vertical trajectory, and polls of those who submitted absentee ballots clearly giving him a wide lead, I'm skeptical that he will pull this off. I have moved into the 'pick me up off the floor, it is possible' category though.

Either way, this will make the health care bill in its current form (whatever that really is today) unpassable, despite the dem leadership missing this point. The 220 votes in the house is probably about 190 right now, and shrinking. If they can make it a more affordable and fair plan, they can get the votes back.

Dan

 

[Winter_123]

He did vote for the Mass plan, but he also articulates why the fed plan is BAD for people of Mass in the form of higher taxes for no additional benefit. Basically, they already pay their bill, now they will have to pay even MORE if the fed plan passes.

Yup, and I have come to believe that Coakley does not have the union vote in Mass anymore. Or at least not solidly and she needs it solidly due to the thin margin.

Union workers are always led to believe by dems that they are poor exploited babies and are entitled to more and more. Now they are coming to realize that under a Marxist system they are considered to be a "have" and not a "have not." The goal of the dems now is to lower their health care and other benefits to the level of the masses rather than to raise the masses up to their level. Now all the blue collar working guys are thinking "WTF, I thought we were the masses."

Same thing going on with the elderly. They bought the Obamacare dream because they figured that health care/medicare could only get better under the commie system. Now they are being told that they will be lucky to hold on to what they have.

Coakley is in trouble in Mass. She may win but she is in deep, deep, deep trouble because the people there are on to the issues. It is not about Coakly running a poor campaign. Yes, that is a major factor. But the people there are also on to the issues.

 

[Mac1958]

I may very well be wrong - just ask my wife - but I suspect the desperate Dems are going to get out the vote and squeak through a victory. Even if they have to cheat, as Ed Schultz suggested.

Fascinating moment on Fox News Sunday, when righty Bill Kristol said that the Dems will be damaged for decades when the health bill passes, and lefty Juan Williams said the public will love the new plan and the Dems will be helped for decades.

Anyone who thinks there's no difference between the parties simply isn't paying attention.

.

 

[Winter_123]

I may very well be wrong - just ask my wife - but I suspect the desperate Dems are going to get out the vote and squeak through a victory. Even if they have to cheat, as Ed Schultz suggested.

Dems just need to be careful because some of those dems that they get out are going to take a walk on the wild side.

They are in trouble.

 

[ins.dave]

If they can make it a more affordable and fair plan, they can get the votes back.
Dan

I have to ask, what do you mean exactly?
"More fair."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now they are being told that they will be lucky to hold on to what they have.
But the people there are also on to the issues.

As stated months ago, time is on our side.
Ultimately, here's what it comes down to.
Access.
There are a finite amount of doctors, hospitals, medical providers.
We have 306,108,000 people.
45, 000,000 uninsured.
So, we can take from the 85% with coverage and give the 15% or 45,000,000 without equal access but of course this will compromise access for the 85% with coverage. As there would be no insurance companies involved, taxation would be increased dramatically to those who pay taxes.
Probably why 61% of the population ain't down with Obummercare. Not to mention the 500,000 doctors who would have their income reduced.
Like one of my clients said last week, "Sure. They got nothing to lose anyway, for them it could only be a step up from Medicaid."
Access is controlled by monetizing the situation as all situations are controlled.
I know, it's all about greed. Hey Al, why don't you adopt a couple of Haitian orphans? C'mon you can afford it?Maybe you'd have to move to "Hog swill KY" to financially finagle it but ...

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Finally we'll have it where no one will go bankrupt with medical bills. Instead we'll go bankrupt paying premiums.

 

[ins.dave]

Dems just need to be careful because some of those dems that they get out are going to take a walk on the wild side.

They are in trouble.

Cute condey photo.
That her? Looks young. Got that gap moved out of her choppers?
Hey, no offense, we know she is the benchmark by which Winter's joy is measured.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finally we'll have it where no one will go bankrupt with medical bills. Instead we'll go bankrupt paying premiums.

Ughhhh, there won't be premiums because there will be no health insurance companies bro.
If'n they have their way.
Which I think is less likely as time goes by.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Great, then we'll get universal healthcare and I'll end up flying to India for treatment.