The Dems Failed Strategy for Health Care
Posted by Joe Rivett on 08.14.2009
I can't write a health care article without insulting old people, fat people, and lawyers!
There is a lot of debate on the so called "town hall strategy." The Left claims the protestors are not representative of America. The far-Left is pissed the media isn't covering the protestors that want single-payer coverage. The Right is embarrassed that the protestors symbolize the anti-intellectual track that the Republican Party is characterized. The far-Right is loving democracy in action.
Now for what you care about, my thoughts:
1. There is too much in the health care bills. For instance, if the goal is a public option, why do we need to tell insurance companies they can't deny based on a pre-existing condition? Insurance companies should be able to do so; it is the public option that shouldn't. If you are trying to run a profitable insurance company, you don't take people that already have cancer. The point of insurance is to protect you if something unfortunate happens while you are already covered. Thus, telling insurance companies they can't drop people when they get sick is acceptable but why can't that be a separate bill? The Democrats are making the mistake in trying to cram everything into one bill which is offending too many interest groups.
2. Anybody who receives Medicare should be concerned that it is bankrupting our nation instead of thinking someone is going to pull the plug on them. And our senior citizens need to stop hating the hand that feeds them. Old people who support "socialism only for me" make me sick.
3. The Democrats holding these town halls who never experienced someone shouting at them now know how it feels to be a Conservative in college, where it is acceptable to yell at conservative speakers and disrupt them. The sad thing is when it is not a hippie-protestor doing this but an actual college professor. I remember when I was arguing Second Amendment rights, I was yelled at like I was advocating the Holocaust.
4. Speaking of interest groups, the Left needs to stop whining about them. Interest groups are what make us a democracy. While the Republican Party may be sabotaging reform by protecting the insurance companies, it is no different than the Democratic Party sabotaging tort reform to protect lawyers.
5. Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) seems to be handling the town halls just fine. When an angry protestor spews garbage, he simply opens the bill and reads to them what it actually says. Eventually, the protester can only argue against fact for so long.
The Democrats are trying to take on too much with health insurance reform. Mandating insurance companies take sick people will only increase costs on those paying into it LIKE ME. Instead, they should establish a public option to protect people that don't have coverage and have severe health problems. If they want to make Medicare and Medicaid more affordable, that is an entirely different debate. Medicare savings shouldn't pay for a public option rather Medicare savings should be to save Medicare from bankrupting the country. Oh yeah I almost forgot number 6…
6. To pay for a public option, raise taxes on fat people… If you really care about preventative health.
You have no idea what you are talking about do you? If you really believe this then it clearly will cloud any judgments you have on anything going forward....so its not even worth the discussion.
FYI - And the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to appease the militia members so the constitution could be ratified (simplifying this for you a bit). THAT is why it is there, and that is an indisputable fact.
Posted By: Vince (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM
"If they want to make Medicare and Medicaid more affordable, that is an entirely different debate. Medicare savings shouldn't pay for a public option rather Medicare savings should be to save Medicare from bankrupting the country."
Great point, and it indicates a fundamental flaw with government thinking. There is only motivation to even TRY to save tax dollars if it will lead to more spending. Cutting waste in and of itself is almost never a serious goal. The insolvency of Medicare underscores why price negotiation is such a crucial part of reform, and negotiation would be best achieved by the massive volume a single payer system would provide.
As for taxing fat people, a co-pay on visits which are not preventive in nature would be the best angle, rather than taxing certain foods, etc.
There's also the idea of a surcharge on treatment resulting from ignoring doctor's advice, which would be quite a hornet's nest. Refused to get a free cancer screening for years? You're getting billed for 50% of the cost of your surgery which could have been prevented had it been caught early. The danger of getting hit financially for not being vigilant could be used as a club on the stubborn to prevent illness, rather than terrorizing doctors into ordering unnecessary tests.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 12:35 PM
How the fuck are you gonna tax 'fat people?' Dumbest shit I've EVER heard based on the generalization that 'fat people' are lazy selfish snobs that sit around pigging out all day. Research, please. This is why people freak out at this shit, because people come up with these "Brave New World" style ideas.
Posted By: C (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 01:13 PM
come on people, I'm pretty sure he meant #6 as a joke
Posted By: dan (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 02:24 PM
#3 could also read:
"The Democrats holding these town halls who never experienced someone shouting at them now know how it feels to be a liberal in a redneck, hick town taking about how homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, where it's acceptable to yell at the liberal speaker and disrupt him."
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 03:43 PM
You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about!
These Liberal ASSHOLES take PHONE calls while people are asking them questions! They bitch and throw hissy fits about people who have already tried setting up meetings with them saying they haven't! I'm sick of idiots like you and the fucking politicians!
We need to impeach every last asshole from the Federal Reserve (I wish) on down to the lowest assohole in Congress and just start the fuck over!
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 04:18 PM
The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution for the plain reason that the founding fathers wanted to safeguard our country. They wanted the people armed. They wanted a government that feared its citizens, not the other way around. They knew the disarming of citizens makes them nothing more than subjects. Besides, how do you expect to defend the Constitution without the Second Amendment? Without the second, the rest will fall.
Protect ALL of your rights, or lose them one at a time.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 04:20 PM
I vote for Jim!!!!!!!
Posted By: Danman (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 05:19 PM
Hey Jim did you read Huckabee's book?
I'm just asking because I'm reading it to, and that is exactly what he wrote in the book about the Second Amendment rights.
Posted By: Guest#0089 (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 07:25 PM
"Besides, how do you expect to defend the Constitution without the Second Amendment? Without the second, the rest will fall."
Gun nut nonsense. There are plenty of other nations in the world practicing gun control that have healthy, thriving democracies.
Real democracies with a wide variety of views being represented. Not the two party snowballing the USA has.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 07:46 PM
" Interest groups are what make us a democracy"
No, they are what is destroying democracy by taking the power away from the voting public.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 07:57 PM
"Gun nut nonsense. There are plenty of other nations in the world practicing gun control that have healthy, thriving democracies."
But many of them had problems with it in the past (France and Germany come to mind). And just because right now there is relative peace does not mean that it will last. There was peace for about twenty years before WW2 and then we fought a war.
"FYI - And the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to appease the militia members so the constitution could be ratified (simplifying this for you a bit). THAT is why it is there, and that is an indisputable fact."
And you have prof? The second amendment was designed as a safety measure to make sure the citizens had a way to defend themselves in case of a tyrannical government. It should be noted that the founding fathers were weary of Government as evident of the BoR restricting government powers as opposed to individual liberties.
Posted By: S. Guy (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 08:12 PM
Hey Jim did you read Huckabee's book?
I'm just asking because I'm reading it to, and that is exactly what he wrote in the book about the Second Amendment rights.
Posted By: Guest#0089 (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 07:25 PM
i looked at that book at the book store and i totally marked out when i saw ric flair in that picture with huckabee.
flair FTW
Posted By: not jim (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 09:53 PM
This socialists in Washington are ruining the United States.
May I remind you that the great empires of the greeks and romans became extinct when they got gay and decadent?
I'm afraid, but this is what is happening to the United States, right now.
Posted By: Shifty (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Their biggest problem is arrogance. They thought that Obama had a mandate, when in fact there is no such thing (Just like there wasn't in 2004 before all you libs jump down my throat, yes I'm aware, some right wingers thought Bush had a mandate... they were just as idiotic as you). They simply thought they would pass this with ease, because they thought this was how the American people are now, a bunch of leftists. This is totally exposing Obama, who ran totally on platitudes and had nothing of substance at all. "Health care for all" "Get out of Iraq" "Close Gitmo" "Hope" "Change" "New kind of politician" All cute things to say, all things that would make anyone blush, but no substance at all.
There other problem, is not one of them, nor really any of the token libs that run their mouths here, can tell anyone what is great about this bill. If it's so great, then articulate that... SELL IT!
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 10:48 PM
When the 2nd Amendment was created, it took minutes to reload the powder. And you were pissing off the dominant hegemony... now you are the dominant hegemony and when's the last time YOU needed to point a gun on Main Street to protect America??? 1984, Red Dawn? ya, I thought so.
"There was peace for about twenty years before WW2 and then we fought a war."
Posted By: S. Guy (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 08:12 PM
On the one hand gun control has NOTHING to do with WW2.
On the other hand... as the first person to bring up Nazis your speaking priveleges need to be revoked.
Posted By: elgrannoche (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 11:22 PM
[George Sr. has been offered a plea bargain nobody has read]
Michael: All right, listen, this is all getting a little crazy. We cannot accept their plea if we don't even know what the plea is.
Barry Zuckerkorn: Do you want to read it?
Michael: No, it is pretty thick. Maybe we should just take the plea.
Posted By: Ford (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 12:48 AM
"When the 2nd Amendment was created, it took minutes to reload the powder. And you were pissing off the dominant hegemony... now you are the dominant hegemony and when's the last time YOU needed to point a gun on Main Street to protect America??? 1984, Red Dawn? ya, I thought so."
Never, and I hope to God no American citizen ever has to point a gun at their own government, but the possibility does exist. Governments throughout the world go from peaceful to run by a tyrant without the public blinking an eye until it happens.
"On the one hand gun control has NOTHING to do with WW2.
On the other hand... as the first person to bring up Nazis your speaking priveleges need to be revoked."
Maybe in France and Europe, but in America it's a right and no policy can take a person's right to free speech. Secondly, I never brought in Nazis, you did. I just said that just because there is peace does not mean that it will last as evident by the 20's and early 30's.
Posted By: S. Guy (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 04:43 AM
It never ceases to amaze me when people refuse to see the other side's position. I think the second amendment was needed at it's time. In the modern era, it is doubtful that, even if EVERYTHING was legalized, that the private citizen would be able to come up with the firepower to combat the federal government as needed. Perhaps both sides of this discussion is correct.
Rivett - if everyone is insured then the money made from the new people entering the system (many of which would bring a guaranteed check from the government) would give them the investment capital to handle the people that would enter the system with cancer. Note that the influx of people with pre-existing cancer and the like will be short-term; over time, since everyone is paying into the system on some level,the companies get their money back, no?
Basically, it makes it a scenario where the insuarance companies want to insure as many people as possible and invest the money well (thus helping stimulating the economy further)...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 08:00 AM
I find it funny that I write a column about health care and now we are debating guns and Nazis :)
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Registered) on August 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Everything that is happening to liberals now is just a dose of their own medicine. They did the same thing to conservatives when they were in power. Poor liberals...They won't get anything they want done...Which is good for America, who don't want socialism.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 11:33 AM
FYI - And the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to appease the militia members so the constitution could be ratified (simplifying this for you a bit). THAT is why it is there, and that is an indisputable fact.
Posted By: Vince (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Wow, Vince...you're stupid. Stick to doing Shamwow commercials and beating up hookers.
Posted By: GTA4 (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 11:36 AM
On the one hand gun control has NOTHING to do with WW2.
On the other hand... as the first person to bring up Nazis your speaking priveleges need to be revoked.
Posted By: elgrannoche (Guest) on August 14, 2009 at 11:2
Actually, YOU'RE wrong. One of Hitler's first edicts was "disarm the populace". This made it easy for the National Socialist to take over, as the populace had no means to defend themselves, and thus, prevent the rise of Nazism. Stalin did precisely the same thing, and up to 20 million people died during his pogroms. So did Pol Pot. Do you see a pattern, wiseass? Perhaps if the people had been able to defend themselves, WWII may not have even happened, and Germany's aggression might have been contained. Maybe not, but it bears pondering, rather than your knee-jerk low IQ attack. But you're probably 14, in your mom's basement, with no idea of what the real world's like, so I guess you can be forgiven.
Posted By: Yes, Daddy (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM
This is addressed to Vince at the top of the comments.
To your first point, it was James Madison that said that faction will save our Republic. The factions of different interest groups makes sure everyone has a voice. From the liberal nut jobs to the right wing nut jobs. Everyone is represented by someone in a interest group out there.
Secondly, the 2nd amendment was added AFTER the Constitution was ratified. If you have any clue about what is the point of the second amendment look at the quotes of our founding fathers. They all say the same basic thing. It is there for our personal protection of life, liberty and property.
Also, the second amendment protects the other nine, because it is the right of the people to abolish government that become tyrannical. Sometimes to do this you have to take up arms against the government. I am not encouraging or advocating that in this present time, but that is why it is there.
Posted By: Adam J. Bulava (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 03:18 PM
"6. To pay for a public option, raise taxes on fat people… If you really care about preventative health. "
...and smokers
...and those who enjoy undercooked meat and contract e. coli
...and those who don't use condoms and get an STD
...who don't use seatbelts
...who ride motorcycles or play dangerous sports
Great idea there, champ.
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 07:59 PM
"Gun nut nonsense. There are plenty of other nations in the world practicing gun control that have healthy, thriving democracies."
Well, it's hard to have a healthy, thriving democracy if one of your constitutionally guaranteed rights can be stripped away in an unconstitutional fashion. Don't like the gun ownership? Fine. Lobby to repeal the 2nd ammendment or for the passage of an ammendment that contravines the 2nd ammendment. Anything else undermines the nature and function of a health, constitutionally governed democracy.
Posted By: Guest#8060 (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 08:22 PM
As a citizen that is awaiting Medicare due to a disability (and for the record, I worked full time from the time I was 16.. 23 years) I am against the public option.
I know it sounds hypocritical, but in all honesty I would give ANYTHING to not be disabled and to be able to work and have private health care.
The Medicare system is a mess, ditto Medicaid.
The answer isn't in public health care. The real problem is that insurance, hospitals, etc have driven the cost of healthcare through the roof and as much as I hate to say it - I think a comprehensive plan that regulates the health industry is what is best.
Although value is determined by what you are willing to pay, I think that a cap on what can be charged is in order.
If people like myself without insurance can't afford it, then we must find a way that we could find AFFORDABLE insurance, not government controlled health care.
And tax fat people? Well as I am overweight due to my disability I fail to see the humor.
Not all fat people are that way because they can't stop eating. Some of us are unable to move around at a pace to burn enough calories to lose weight.
Smaller portions don't do it alone. I am living proof.
Flame away!
Posted By: Disabled American (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 09:28 PM
How does it make you liberals feel to know Americans don't want socialism? How does it make you feel to know that throughout history no one has ever wanted socialism, it's always been through force. You have lost again.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on August 15, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The problem the democrats have, is the fact that they can't sell this bill to the american people because A. They know it sucks or B. They simply haven't read it. So the facts aren't on there side, so what do they do? They do what they always do. They demonize the people that are questioning the all knowing President Obama, call them mobsters, call them racists, do anything they can do to not actually talk about the bill itself. All you have to do is watch the nightly line up on MSNBC, even there when they have the chance to articulate the plan with Chris "I get a tingle up my leg when President Obama speaks" Matthews or Olbermann, or Maddow, they can't do it. They claim they want to talk about the substance of the bill, yet when given the golden chance to do so, they can't/won't/don't. WHY SHOULD ANYONE CONSIDER THIS REFORM?
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on August 16, 2009 at 01:27 AM
I’ll say this much – Myself and Spyke may be on opposite sides of the “stereotypical political spectrum”, but I agree with him:
We just need to start over. America in its current form is not working. We truly need to re-think and re-establish the fundamental definition of government, democracy and our constitution. It needs to be overturned and overhauled.
It’s sad, because I don’t think the “United” States exist anymore. Or at least, have not for about 40 years now. It may honestly be time to either a) have a Civil War so the winning side can have things COMPLETELY their way or b) actually consider splitting the country into different smaller countries based on political ideals.
I’m truly saddened, hurt and mournful for my country. It had so much promise and our own selfishness, lack of compassion, lack of information and lack of independent thought ruined it. By proxy, it ruined the rest of the world as well.
Everything at the end comes down to cost, which is really a nice word for greed. Thanks, everyone. Thanks for proving the whole “money is the root of all evil” theory correct. As human beings, we’re fucked. No wonder so many of us have gone bat-shit insane.
Posted By: The 8th Samurai (Guest) on August 17, 2009 at 11:58 AM
It occurs that these comments have degraded, in some cases, no mindless shouting and irrelevant fact checking with nothing to do with the topic, so I would like to offer a return to the topic at hand.
That said, I am curious to know how many people who commented even know the title of this bill (H.R. 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 for those who did not or did not care to know). I have read it, and yes I mean the enire thing, and I am not a lawyer or a politition, but so far as I can tell it does not advocate socialism. Now, I want to make it clear that I do not support this bill, but my reasoning is different. I agree that the democrats are trying to do too much at once. Many of thier ideas presented in the bill I agree with, however it needs to be broken up. That is why I don't support it because I don't agree with everything in it. I do beleive that the democrats had a valid reason for attempting to pass the bill in this fashion however. Obama promised change. Now some of the things, such as Guantanamo, he had the power to easily change with little opposition. However, health care will not be resolved so easily, mainly becasue it affects people's wallets, and as much as it hurts to say so our country is motivated by greed, and so whenever anything that affects people's wallets is tampered with the opposition immediately grows to a shitstorm, which is where we are at now. If the democrats had broken this bill up they would have a much better chance to implement the changes that they are proposing. However, I believe that they didn't because the American people are impatient and so expect immediate rectification of any issue. Well the only way to accomplish this is to attempt to implement massive and immediate changes which is where this bill came from. This seems to be getting long and so I will cut myself short here, feel free to argue my ideas but if you do at least keep it on topic. Thanks.
Posted By: Ben Jamin' (Guest) on August 17, 2009 at 03:37 PM
STAY CURRENT