Health Care, the next battle

jank

Looks to be the next big battle going on.

Over the Congress recess seems to be alot of town hall meetings being hijacked by "grass root" americans venting their concerns over government run health care. Well first of all have they ever heard of medicare...

Anyway these groups are nothing more than well funded tea partys aka astro truf. Brings me back to Florida 2000.

Theory blown apart by Rachel Maddow.

ChocolateSauce

What they need is a socalised health system. Choice isn't a requisite for quality.

Manic Moran

Problem there is that it's just a tad easier said than done. Just how socialised? Cuban Healthcare? Something semi-socialised like the Dutch? How about the Irish system? (No, wait, I saw some threads about the Irish system, let's skip over that one).

There is going to be great difficulty on coming to an agreement which is acceptable to enough people to gain passage in the legislature. That's probably why the US is still heavily reliant on private healthcare: The private sector has stepped in to fill the void that the government has been unable to deal with. It's not as if trying to fix the US's healthcare system is a new idea which Obama has brought up.

NTM.

ChocolateSauce

I never said it would be easy .

The British system is good. So is the French, the Nordic....really most European systems other than our own have something to be said for them.



Hmmm....just watched the video. Neither Doctors nor patients nor the government controls your choice of medical care in the US; insurance companies do.

jank

Well Obama is the only president to actually try and change the status qoe. I agree that something like the dutch model should be looked at. This will be an interesting battle but if Obama manages to pass this thing then it could be the best thing he will have done in 4/8 years in office.

There is billions at stake here in special interest money and the next month will bring plenty of town hall "debates"

By the way its kinda funny watching some of the right wing commentators pointing at europe and say "dem guys are socialists!, they kill their old people". As if we are all members of some communist party...
News to me as there are 30 odd countries that practice capitalism and many countries have shifted to the centre right like france and germany.
The old Soviet boggey man isnt there anymore to scare people!! Yet another reason why the GOP are ****ed, no new ideas and it is not the 80's any more.

tolosenc

There isn't a lot of support for this in the States though. Shouldn't it be their will, and not that of a bunch of lefties' on an Irish based site?

Even if the idea were good, which it's not, this is hardly the correct economic situation in which to piss even more money down the drain.

ChocolateSauce

obl wrote: »

There isn't a lot of support for this in the States though. Shouldn't it be their will, and not that of a bunch of lefties' on an Irish based site?

Even if the idea were good, which it's not, this is hardly the correct economic situation in which to piss even more money down the drain.

Firstly, try telling that to the tens of millions of Americans who have no health care, and secondly the US is actually the one pissing money away on health; they spend over twice as much per person on health care as the average developed nation but with vastly inferior overall results because the system is driven by profit and not health, so people are sent on many unneeded and overly expensive tests by doctors who make money by doing so. In short, the US system is bloated and wasteful, and the cost of providing good care for the majority is not providing care for a very large minority.

Overheal

jank wrote: »

Theory blown apart by Rachel Maddow.

Youre kidding me with that video.

Where does the advertisement shes criticising say anything about "plot to kill old people" (?)

I had to turn her off. Sensationalist bitch. Her i mean. Not you. But please. No more of her.

Look I have no problem with expanding healthcare onto the unemployed and all of that good stuff, but when the unemployment rate is * >_> * 9.7 percent? The time to talk about this would have been at 4%. Im sorry but I smell Irish all over this - and by that, sorry, I mean I see a system ready to be painfully exploited by slackers and short-timers who would rather sit on their couch and claim medical cards and dole money than do anything that contributes to society. I've upset myself some days thinking about how many people defaulted on their mortages just to qualify for some of that sweet Hope and Change - that I voted for.

try telling that to the tens of millions of Americans who have no health care

Thats another problem I noted with Irish healthcare. The public option kinda keeps everyone glazed over the fact that there are much better (albeit more expensive, but certainly much more attentive) private health plans on offer. I remember someone was trying to push the idea a few months ago that healthcare (private or public - one or the other) would be mandatory, and youd have to pay into some plan, and it would somehow be impossible for anyone not to be covered by at least basic healthcare.

The problem with basic healthcare being, plenty of barebones plans cover Emergency room visits - meaning you get a lot of scraped knees holding up the line for real emergencies.

jank

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life

Her Majesty Mrs. Palin defends her "death panel" remark...:p

Anytime I watch fox, they have these guys asking angry questions, but they always cut away before the Rep. has a chance to answer. They do this again and again and again..

You know I hope they pass this in spite of them.

@glinner)

Looks like the British are all ahoo over the NHS being dissed in the US...

Britons defend their health care from US criticism

I'm psyched. The power of twitter shows itself again! \O/

MAJAAAAR EDAAAAATT!!!!

Of all the people to start this #welovethenhs backlash, it was none other than....

Graham Lenihan (@glinner)

He who created Father Ted.

Channel 4 News interview here


Now I am really really psyched.

\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/

Plus ca change! Yay!

BlitzKrieg

I lolled

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019432.php

Black Swan

The health care system in the USA needs to be revamped indeed! It's a sad joke for the world's largest economy in terms of GDP, in that you get the best health care that money can buy, and if you don't have the money, too bad!

But I believe that Obama has got his priorities mixed up. First he needs to help turn around the US economy, while at the same time get them out of two very expensive wars. If he fails in doing this, he will not be reelected in 2012. After the economy and war-exit strategies are well underway and show results, focus on rebuilding and changing the national infrastructure, which includes health care, education, petrol alternatives, etc.

**Paid for by the Bad B!ue for US Senate PAC**;)

jank

Obama soften his stance on this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8204508.stm

Not good, the dems have a filibuster in the senate, big majority in congress and have the white house. Just shows you how bought the dems and the GOP are to big corporations. Well at least he tried....

Manic Moran

Why does it have to be corporations? Maybe the people who elect the various congresscritters simply don't like the plan? Some may think it goes too far, some may think it doesn't go far enough, but it seems that 'not enough' like it as it is, going by the polls.

NTM

is_that_so

There's a very long piece on Rahm Emanuel in the NY Times here in which it credits him with pushing the "all balls in the air" approach that Obama is currently running with. What's also interesting is the way he seems to run policy in the White House where focus can switch completely from one day to the next. True it makes them flexible and adaptable but over time can give the impression of policies poorly thought-out and subject to backtracking.

As that piece points out and as the latest reports show it is a very high risk strategy and somewhere along the way it is going to run into problems. Unfortunately stated policies and proposals sooner or later run into the reality of making them happen. From Obama's point of view it might have been better to have come a cropper with something more mundane than the cornerstone of his term.

Personally can't see why he's in such a rush to prove that he's doing things. After all if he doesn't excessively dirty his bib he has 7 more years to sort out all of these promises and it is far better to achieve them slowly over time than have to row back on things that are rushed.

worldrepublic

is_that_so wrote: »

There's a very long piece on Rahm Emanuel in the NY Times here in which it credits him with pushing the "all balls in the air" approach that Obama is currently running with. What's also interesting is the way he seems to run policy in the White House where focus can switch completely from one day to the next. True it makes them flexible and adaptable but over time can give the impression of policies poorly thought-out and subject to backtracking.

As that piece points out and as the latest reports show it is a very high risk strategy and somewhere along the way it is going to run into problems. Unfortunately stated policies and proposals sooner or later run into the reality of making them happen. From Obama's point of view it might have been better to have come a cropper with something more mundane than the cornerstone of his term.

Personally can't see why he's in such a rush to prove that he's doing things. After all if he doesn't excessively dirty his bib he has 7 more years to sort out all of these promises and it is far better to achieve them slowly over time than have to row back on things that are rushed.

7 more years?

Try 1-3.

is_that_so

worldrepublic wrote: »

7 more years?

Try 1-3.

Care to offer any more insight?

Manic Moran

Personally can't see why he's in such a rush to prove that he's doing things

I'll never track it down now, but I was reading an article a few weeks ago which mentioned that the best chance a President has of getting any legislation he wants passed is within the first few months of office, before his honeymoon period is over. If you wait, you may never get it passed. You just have to pick what's important enough to you to get done first.

NTM

spank_inferno

is_that_so wrote: »

Care to offer any more insight?

Does he need to provide it?
He's implying that Obama may not get a 2nd term.

Fair comment I think

Why does obama move on healthcare reform now?
Because its never too soon to help the weakest in society.

I watched his town hall meeting on Montana last week and it was pretty good, though he was a bit vague on the details.

And another thing, isnt it strange how republicans love a socialised military but not health services.

is_that_so

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll never track it down now, but I was reading an article a few weeks ago which mentioned that the best chance a President has of getting any legislation he wants passed is within the first few months of office, before his honeymoon period is over. If you wait, you may never get it passed. You just have to pick what's important enough to you to get done first.

NTM

And therein lies the problem , as others have posted; his choices. Attempting everything at once is really not feasible and raises the spectre of long-term disappointment. I doubt if fixing the US Healthcare system is feasible in this term either but a start can most certainly be made.

is_that_so

spank_inferno wrote: »

Does he need to provide it?
He's implying that Obama may not get a 2nd term.

Fair comment I think

Why does obama move on healthcare reform now?
Because its never too soon to help the weakest in society.

I watched his town hall meeting on Montana last week and it was pretty good, though he was a bit vague on the details.

And another thing, isnt it strange how republicans love a socialised military but not health services.

Fly by commentary in my opinion and hard to say if there was even an attempt to read my post, in which I alluded to that point anyway.

Agreed that the weak and vulnerable deserve attention but they will hardly thank him if he fails. There is always a risk in addressing so many other things at once that he may not effectively do any well. That vagueness you mentioned has been highlighted as a weakness in the overall plan.

America has also struck me as a country of contradictions and the proposed reforms do seem to equate with Govt input like European health systems. It's also a good, somewhat populist stick to beat the Obama with, without getting into the absurd conspiracy theories.
Socialism to Europeans does not have that "reds under the bed" undertone that Americans see in it.

Manic Moran

Does he need to provide it?
He's implying that Obama may not get a 2nd term.

No, his comment struck me as odd as well. If that was all he was implying, he would have said '3', not '1-3'

NTM

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why does it have to be corporations? Maybe the people who elect the various congresscritters simply don't like the plan? Some may think it goes too far, some may think it doesn't go far enough, but it seems that 'not enough' like it as it is, going by the polls.

NTM

Are you telling me that the health insurance companies are NOT in the front lines in this battle? The US has the MOST expensive health care in the World BECAUSE of these companies and I have yet to see any survey that says they are the best in the world as a result. They are creaming it. Now it does not take anybody with a bit of brains to realise that this situation needs to change. You spend the most money but get very average results. Are you happy with this status que?

Unfortunately they are going down the route at painting any public or government involvement as a commie move. The "outrage for hire" seems to be the way to go. The whole dialog has been hijacked by the hysterics who want their' America back.

This is a classic example in my opinion is why America's days as a super power is on it way out. The country is just too divided.

Black Swan

jank wrote: »

This is a classic example in my opinion is why America's days as a super power is on it way out. The country is just too divided.

If you look back historically, the Americans have always been divided for over 300 years, even during colonial times (Revolutionaries vs Loyalists)? The North vs South Civil War? Between WWI and WWII there were the Isolationists and the Military Industrial Complex? The Vietnam War protest movement and the pro-war anti-communists? The Civil Rights Movement of the late 60's and 70's? The Republicans vs Democrats? We could go on and on with examples of internal conflict in their nation, yet in spite of all this conflict over three centuries, they are now the number one economy (in terms of GDP).*

The leadership in early WWII Japan believed that "The country is just too divided" before they attacked Pearl Harbour. This was against the advice of their Admiral Yamamoto, who warned that they would awaken the sleeping giant. It would seem that the only time you get the Americans together in sufficient numbers is after you attack them?





*Their super power status is only temporary, as with the dawn and dusk of past empires. China may be the next super power that will eventually surpass the USA in GDP (as well as in other measures), but I doubt that internal conflict will be the main reason for the USA to decline. They have always had internal conflict. Geeeeeez, there were several of us taking sides on Obama's health care reform legislation in this java house, and the arguments were heated!

Manic Moran

This was against the advice of their Admiral Yamamoto, who warned that they would awaken the sleeping giant.

Aprocryphal quote, by the way. Only reliable reference that he may have ever said such as thing was "Tora! Tora! Tora!", which I would hardly use to support an academic paper. The closest he's known to have said was "I can raise havoc with the Americans for the first year, after that I can guarantee nothing" He turned out to be about right.

As a side note, the 'rifle behind every blade of grass' comment also often attributed to Yamamoto was in fact a comment from a post-war conference between Japanese and American naval officers.

NTM

jank

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If you look back historically, the Americans have always been divided for over 300 years, even during colonial times (Revolutionaries vs Loyalists)? The North vs South Civil War? Between WWI and WWII there were the Isolationists and the Military Industrial Complex? The Vietnam War protest movement and the pro-war anti-communists? The Civil Rights Movement of the late 60's and 70's? The Republicans vs Democrats? We could go on and on with examples of internal conflict in their nation, yet in spite of all this conflict over three centuries, they are now the number one economy (in terms of GDP).*

!

I agree but it seems that people are more divided than ever. I think the reason for this is that you have 2 big parties which are then divided themselves. TBH there should be 4-5 big parties in the US. I don't know, all I do know is that other countries look on a see an angry population that cant agree on anything which makes them look very weak. The Chinese must be laughing their heads off.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Aprocryphal quote, by the way. Only reliable reference that he may have ever said such as thing was "Tora! Tora! Tora!", which I would hardly use to support an academic paper. The closest he's known to have said was "I can raise havoc with the Americans for the first year, after that I can guarantee nothing" He turned out to be about right.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'..."

Sources:
http://www.focusdep.com/quotes/authors/Isoroku/Yamamoto
http://www.famousquotes.com/search.php?search=1&FirstName=Isoroku&LastName=Yamamoto&field=FullName
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isorokuyam224334.html
http://www.ccdemo.info/PearlHarbor/PearlHarborDayRemembered.html

(Not scholarly sources per your "academic paper" reference)

There is some debate regarding the exact wording, or if the exact quote was in fact made, as well as the translation from Japanese to English within the differing contexts of 1940s Japan and USA, but the spirit and intent of this statement revealed his reluctance regarding an attack on Pearl Harbour (even though he planned it)?

This also raises the larger issue of revisionist history, where historians, pulp authors, and screenwriters may put an after-the-fact popular spin on their version of history to please their respective audiences to sell books and films?

In regard to the issue of health care reform, I can just imagine how a strong Republican historian may author the outcome in contrast to a strong Democratic historian at some future date? Max Weber in Economy & Society suggested that "value free" does not exist in society, and that we are all biased in our socially constructed perspectives (Oh, this is a scholarly source worthy of citation in an "academic paper," per your earlier comment).

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

(Not scholarly sources per your "academic paper" reference)

And justifiably not. I've found other errors on such quote sites. I'm currently beating our Fires cell about for attributing the quote "Artillery brings dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl" to Napoleon, they got it from one such site. (Really said by Frederick the Great)

I'll see you your Internet, and raise you Library of Congress.

Nigel Rees wrote:

No evidence exists that Yamamoto really said the "sleeping giant" quote. It is not found in any of his writings. The only time it was quoted was in the screenplay (written by Gordon Prange and Ladislas Farago) of Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970), dialogue and cutting continuity, reel 18, page 16. However, a month after Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto wrote, in a letter to Ogata Taketora (January 9, 1942), "A military man can scarely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; in fact, to have pointed it out is more a matter of shame."

However, there is a Napoleon quote which is quite notable, as found here

Safire's New Political Dictionary wrote:

SLEEPING GIANT - "unrealized source of great power; untapped or potential force. This term is perhaps derived from the plight of the title character in Jonathan Swift's 1726 novel, 'Gulliver's Travels'.The term itself may have appeared after the attack on Pearl Harbor. 'Respectfully Quoted,' a collection of quotations by the Library of Congress, tracks the term to a 1970 motion picture, 'Tora, Tora, Tora.' In the film Isoroku Yamamoto, a Japanese admiral in World War II, says, 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.' The attributed remark, however, has no printed evidence to support Yamamoto's use. In 1978, Vermont Royster offered another possible source in the 'Wall Street Journal': 'China is a sickly, sleeping giant. But when she awakes the world will tremble.'.attributed to Napoleon by Lord Amherst."

revealed his reluctance regarding an attack on Pearl Harbour (even though he planned it)?

More like 'caution.' See above comment about causing the US fits for a year, but nothing more.

NTM

Manic Moran

As an aside, can anyone tell me why the Federal Government is even getting involved in providing healthcare?

It's not as if it's something the States are incapable of dealing with. Massachusets apparently has quite a good system, for example.

And, like many other things, if the conservative States don't want to pay into a public option, and the non-conservatives do, then they can, and all is well with the world.

NTM

Sand

I agree but it seems that people are more divided than ever. I think the reason for this is that you have 2 big parties which are then divided themselves. TBH there should be 4-5 big parties in the US. I don't know, all I do know is that other countries look on a see an angry population that cant agree on anything which makes them look very weak. The Chinese must be laughing their heads off.

While there is a certain advantage to a no nonsense "Lets go!" style decision making process, sometimes its not a bad idea to agree what the destination is in advance. The Chinese have very little public discussion or criticism so they simply have to trust in their philosopher kings. And pride themselves on their decisiveness, because nothing else is an option. Nor is even raising the possibility of public discussion or criticism an option.

The great man mythology is massively popular with leftists but history is full of great men who led their followers to disaster. Christ, look at Northern Rock.

Black Swan

Sand wrote: »

The great man mythology is massively popular with leftists but history is full of great men who led their followers to disaster.

Only "leftists?" The Right has not exhibited any "massively popular... great men" in "history?" No "great man mythology" on the Right?

The outcome of Obama's early term health care reform will certainly be a factor in 2012, but no matter how it turns out, the two most important factors for his reelection will be (1) if the economy turns around, and (2) if he can withdraw from two wars (and not get caught-up in yet another).

Manic Moran

I don't think even point #2 is all that important.

#1 is pretty likely going to happen. It may or may not be because of his policies, but it won't matter, as it happened under his watch and he will be able to claim credit for it. About the only possible liabilities on the economy side will be if the direction the deficit is going in is up or down in 2011-2012, and the view of the unions on his presidency after having let a couple of pretty prominent union companies go bankrupt.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/investors-business-daily-walks-back-implication-that-hawking-not-from-uk.php

did anyone else see this?

Basically some newspaper claiming that where Stephen Hawkings born in the UK he would have been left to die by the NHS ... talk about not bothering to do any research and just making stuff out of thin air! ... crazy stuff.

RedPlanet

According to a thread at DemocraticUnderground, they have 45 Senators onside.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8611375&mesg_id=8611375
That may not include this guy named Warner which recently indicated his support.
http://www.bluevirginia.us/2009/08/mark-warner-will-not-vote-against.html

How many do they need to pass it?

LostinKildare

A simple majority (51) for passage; 50 would do it because the vice president breaks a tie. 60 for cloture.

If Kennedy's seat remains unfilled, then 50 for passage, 59 for cloture.

irish_bob

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think even point #2 is all that important.

#1 is pretty likely going to happen. It may or may not be because of his policies, but it won't matter, as it happened under his watch and he will be able to claim credit for it. About the only possible liabilities on the economy side will be if the direction the deficit is going in is up or down in 2011-2012, and the view of the unions on his presidency after having let a couple of pretty prominent union companies go bankrupt.

NTM

let me ask you a question if i may , how much would the average health care package cost in america , i myself have health insurance and i pay 700 euro per year , with this i get 50% of all GP costs covered and i get a private room in a public hospital , since we have a mish mash or public - private in this country , the benefits of health insurance are not as clearly defined as in the states so i cant go into any further detail but i want to make it clear i am not against a private health system so long as it is not prohibitive , if a decent healthcare package for a family in ireland cost around 2500 euro a year then i believe thier is no one in ireland who could complain about not being able to afford health insurance as our level of wellfare is very generous and many smokers would spend that kind of money each year on ciggarettes , we in ireland are led to believe that health insurance in america costs around a thousand dollars a month , if this is indeed true , the system is seriously screwed up

anyway , what does insurance cost in the states for someone on an average wage of say 40,000 dollars

Manic Moran

Not sure. I pay about $300-$400 a year through my employer, but it's just me on the policy.

I'm not sure I understand why it is that American healthcare insurance tends to be pricey, whilst American car insurance tends to be dirt cheap. (I pay $1500 a year for two sports cars (One with a 3.8l, one with a 4.2l) and an SUV.. can you imagine what I'd be paying in Ireland?). If we can figure out how to synch whatever's happening in the one into the other, I'm sure private health insurance can become a lot cheaper.

NTM

imokyrok

Insurance cost seems to be difficult pin down for some starnge reason. Employers pay most of it from what I can see.

"In 1960, U.S. firms spent 1.2% of their payroll on health insurance. In 2006, they spent 9.9%. Costs rising at this rate are unsustainable and put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that almost universally have lighter health-care burdens. It also destroys U.S. jobs."

9.9% seems very high indeed. Presumably on your example of a person on 40,000 the employer would then be paying about 4000 extra on top of it. Thats about twice what I pay for a family of five.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376450845822712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Elsewhere in that article it says: "Absent reform, the price of an average family's insurance will nearly double over the next decade—to $25,000 from $13,000." Surely that doesn't mean 13000 per annum?! I have heard very large numbers like that bandied around before but without a timescale. I've also read many articles which document that the government in the US pays far more per capita for healthcare than most other western countries but for far less coverage. It's hard to make sense of their system.

imokyrok

Heres another article

"The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars (714 euros) a month, a poll showed Wednesday."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html
:eek: So that 13000 is per annum!

RedPlanet

It's pretty outrageous alright.
I've read stories of hospitals turning people away due to lack of insurance.
Do Republicans have Health Care reform on their own agenda?
I don't remember hearing much about it during the last 8 years.
The impression I get is that anytime the Dems try to overhaul the system, the Republicans defend the status-quo.

imokyrok

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/investors-business-daily-walks-back-implication-that-hawking-not-from-uk.php

did anyone else see this?

Basically some newspaper claiming that where Stephen Hawkings born in the UK he would have been left to die by the NHS ... talk about not bothering to do any research and just making stuff out of thin air! ... crazy stuff.

Yeah I saw that at the time. Talk about an own goal!

"We say his life is far from worthless, as they do at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge, where Professor Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, was treated for chest problems in April. As indeed does he. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/12/birthers-stephen-hawking-paul-rowen

is_that_so

Ted Kennedy's death reduces the number of Dem Senators to 59 , under that 60 filibuster-proof number. There are moves afoot, at present , to get a "temporary" candidate by changing MA law.

In today's Irish Times (from FT)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0829/1224253467466.html

...
The row over the alleged politicisation of Mr Kennedy’s passing is likely to continue after the funeral as Democrats step up plans to amend state law in Massachusetts so Mr Kennedy’s seat can be filled by a temporary appointee, and the party can keep its potentially critical 60-seat majority in the Senate during the key autumn session.

Under existing Massachusetts law, an election should be held 145-160 days after the seat is vacated. That would leave the seat vacant until January – too late for a vote in the Senate to shut off an opposition filibuster, which needs a majority of 60.
...

irish_bob

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's pretty outrageous alright.
I've read stories of hospitals turning people away due to lack of insurance.
Do Republicans have Health Care reform on their own agenda?
I don't remember hearing much about it during the last 8 years.
The impression I get is that anytime the Dems try to overhaul the system, the Republicans defend the status-quo.

insurance companies are major funders of republican campaigns , they fund the democrats too but not to the same degree

Manic Moran

The impression I get is that anytime the Dems try to overhaul the system, the Republicans defend the status-quo.

No, they just object to the Democratic leadership's version of the plan (One has to distinguish, because a number of Democrats have their own ideas), because of the public health option.
The current Republican solution is similar to the one McCain proposed in his campaign.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/05/20/100709.htm

They claim it will cut costs, and expand coverage to those not currently covered under the employer-focused system we currently enjoy.

NTM

JohnMc1

irish_bob wrote: »

they fund the democrats too but not to the same degree

Yeah because ACORN, SEIU, ACLU and other assorted radical groups don't give enough to the Dems.:rolleyes:

irish_bob

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah because ACORN, SEIU, ACLU and other assorted radical groups don't give enough to the Dems.:rolleyes:

what have any of those orginisations got to do with health care

Scofflaw

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah because ACORN, SEIU, ACLU and other assorted radical groups don't give enough to the Dems.:rolleyes:

Relevance?

moderately,
Scofflaw

jank

A video on health care you will NOT see on tv, because its much too calm and reasonable