1) Did we have time for health care reform? No, not that year. I think we wasted too much time on health care rather than really working out what we were doing with the economy. I think more consideration could've been spent on what kind of bank reforms if any should be put into place, and also what the possible ramifications of a fall in the Euro would be, and how to prevent one. We got seriously blindsided by the PIGS problem which should've been completely foreseeable. Much like the American TurmOIL post, I would argue that this is a mistake that is a matter of national security. Aside from the money lost by not focusing on the economy, if the cost estimates are not exactly correct, we could be facing increased debt, decreased economic productivity, or both. Our economy has to be the priority in this case and it wasn't.
2) Do we have the money? This is a two part answer because we are attempting to do two things: make the system more efficient, and increase coverage. Yes, we needed to do it from a financial standpoint to make the system more efficient and cut waste in the years to come. No, we cannot afford to, at the same time, risk expanding coverage to 100% of Americans. I don't think very many people actually believe we'll save money by doing this, and even so, it should've first been tested to be a more efficient system, THEN maybe have it forced upon everybody if necessary. The big variables that I think the government may not be correctly accounting for are how private insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will react to the changes. Their economic predictions thus far give me little optimism for their ability to forecast through the duration of the implementation of the bill. There are far too many variables and too slim a margin for profit.
3) Partisanship: holy cow, this was THE WORST case of partisan bickering I have ever seen. The dems with their overwhelming numbers managed to pass a bill that I think completely lacked any sort of democratic process, and I blame both sides equally. Had the Reps had more constructive criticism than "start over," I think they could've gotten a lot more in the bill, and America could've had a superior health care bill. The Dems obviously had the numbers and in the absence of constructive criticism pushed the bill through in what should be considered an illegal pace. The bill is SO long that I would not even consider skimming through it, and it was supposed to be read and voted on in 72hrs!?! Come on. Surely this will set a new precedent and define a new method for the exclusive use of stacked Senates. Fooliboosting? Haha, sounds like a naming contest in the making :P
4) What's in the bill? Honestly, who knows!?! I have a great page that'll do side by side comparisons of different proposals, but I seriously still have no idea what's actually in the bill. I also have this more user friendly but outdated timeline. But knowing how it was, how it is, and how it should be are all far beyond my knowledge of the health system. Feel free to comment if you know better.
5) What's NOT in the bill? Conservatives, feel free to chime in here, I forget what major beefs the Reps had with the bill, but from all the articles I could find only 6 real ideas posed by Reps made it into the 1000+ page bill. That's a pretty poor showing.
Conclusion: No time, no money, no consensus... but seriously, who didn't see this coming? Did anyone watch the elections!?! Obama ran on the platform that he was going to radically change health care to make it affordable, available, and mandatory for all. I wasn't a fan of it then, and I'm not now, but it's something everybody should've at least expected.
Well, think this post is long enough without the rant about over-population, and longer unhappier lives. Additional RELEVANT!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!1!! !!!!!1! ... !!!! insights are welcome.
btw, I know this post is lacking a lot of sources, I may add them in the future, but if you want some, just ask for them. Sorry, still a little exhausted from being sick.
3 comments:
I will get back to this post, but in a nutshell we had bribery of Senator's "Cornhusker bribe", etc....similar to bribery of potential wanna be Senator's in elections, Sestak, Romanov,.....shameful Chicago style politics as usual. Blogovich was another example of bribes.
The main goal of health care bill was expansion of government, and another piece in the socialist agenda puzzle.
Wayne
Couple of things come to mind:
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can force you to buy an insurance product or face crimminal punishment?
2. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can comandeer the free enterprise health care system?
3. Which of the happy socialist European countries with national health care NOT going broke?
4. Who of the UNinsured are not already getting a wide range of FREE health care services in hospital emergency rooms?
5. Does the healthcare bill deal with tort reform, and cross state insurance purchasing? Two potential improvements in cost without screwing up the free market system.
6. The lame brain government pays a supplier of mobile handicap chairs and scooter in 18 months. Already a case of rationing, being that the supplier isn't even interested in floating the bill for a year and a half.
Obamacare hasn't even kicked in, and there's already rationing. Today Obama promised $250 boc checks to Medicare recipients to offset the cost of prescription drugs. Pretty funny guy! Where's that 250 bocs coming from? Our national debt is already 90% plus of GDP...not including social security, and Medicare.
Note: Gold and silver have been following the stock market for most of the year. But after the Euro-Greek fiasco, gold and silver have been going their own way. What does that have to do with health care? Foolish spending on socialist programs are bankrupting countries left and right.....no, I mean just Left!
Wayne Yasuhara
AN ENTIRELY RELEVANT POST! :D 10 points
1) This like many other laws has nothing to do with the constitution, which does not by default make it unconstitutional. It's very similar to the way we're forced to have auto insurance, except we aren't forced, just fined.
2) Again not a constitutional issue, and also not what's going on. Health care remains in private hands, just faces public regulations, much the way the food industry must meet the standards of the FDA.
Note: strict constitutionalists should know what matters are and are not addressed by the constitution! DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
3) Switzerland and Norway. Look em up.
4) None of them do. Nothing's free in the ER, they send you a FAT bill that bankrupts families who don't have insurance. They're just not allowed to turn away patients, doesn't mean they don't charge them.
5) I think tort reform made it, cross-state did not. Check that page I posted though.
6) I know nothing about this, but it doesn't sound that surprising. Reimbursement through insurance is always slow, but that doesn't sound like a policy issue.
And yes, I agree, we don't have the funds for this whether we spend the next 4yrs stock piling or not. Your national debt number sounds off though, that does include medicare and social security. Actually the majority of all debt is to ourselves, which I suppose is preferable to being in debt to China per se.
Post a Comment