Norbrook at Daily Kos posts about an ugly baby that grew up to be beautiful and smart. Is that the health insurance reform bill? Which is not safely delivered yet?
I can hope. I’ll still work for reform, because we have even more work to do if it passes.
Salon says the bill reconciliation will focus on affordability.
December 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Unfortunately any analysis of the the Senate reminds one of the line from Hamlet: “there’s something rotten in Denmark.” To expect corrupt politicians such as Dodd, Reid, Kerry, Nelson, Landreau, etc., and the latest sex crazed public politician, Mr. Baccus of Montana, to refuse pay-offs for votes, is akin to waiting for ice to freeze in Dante’s Hell. Reid’s Nevade gets money at a time when “Dingy Harry” is behind in the polls for re-election. Mr. Kerry gets $500 million to pay for the losses in his state’s medical program; Mr. Nelso is perhaps the biggest thief and gets Nebrask to never pay taxes; Ms. Landreau gets $300 million for her state; and on and on. Even “Honets” Joe Lieberman ran for cover—poor Joe can’t remember where truth and honor reside.
Apparently 92% of Americans have health coverage and %90 of those are content with the overage they have. Some 10 million youg people have chosen not to pay for any coverage since they are young and think they will live forever. Another 10 million or so need financial help to get covered and another 15 million are illegals who should not be here anyway or to take (steal) our money for medical care. Now this bill will cost a trillion dollars or so, and that is 1000 billion. The math is simple, give the familes who need insurance, insurance for somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 per year, and leave the rest of us alone.
Congress with an approval rating approaching that of rabies is likely to see massive changes in the next elextion. Much of this can be attributed to the almost total failure of the Obama administration to accomplish anything, beside many trips and many expensive dinners. The inability and very limited talents of Mr. Obama, certainly the least experienced President in modern times, has created the leadership vacum in politics that allows Mr. Reid and Ms Pelosi to slither about unchallenged. No one in political office, in either party, takes Mr. Obama seriously as a political force. Wasting time on a 2000 page-plus piece of horrid legislation is an indication of this leadership gap.
Wasting time on a piece of legislation most Americans do not need or want and writing 2100 pages of legislation creating federal offices, or passing non-funded mandates for states, is hardly a tciket for the rationality train. Mr. Nelson lied when he said he needed to have Nebraska free of needing to fun Medicaid because the Nebrask Governor told him so. The Governor proceeded to get on TV and said he never said any such thing and Nebrask does not want the money. The attorney generals of several states are now looking at the constitutionality of the bill as well as crimes that may have been
December 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Donald, I work as a nurse and I see people every day who have problems with lack of insurance or lack of good coverage through the insurance they have.
My small business friends and associates are seeing their bills go up, I supervise health care workers who have no protection at all if they themselves get sick and nurses who work in emergency rooms tell me that they are being flooded with people who have no other recourse.
So I question your sources.
December 27, 2009 at 12:40 am
I’m with you, Nancy. This is essentially the same argument made in previous posts – all if I remember without attribution. I do know that Americans For Limited Government and the Cato Institute have made several of these arguments, to a greater or lesser degree.
Like you, I see too many people in my agency without resources – particularly health care. This is a broad-based problem that screams for a broad-based solution, not the piecemeal approach offered as reform.
By Mr. Wolberg’s reckoning, there are only 20 million un/underinsured here in America. He is quick to discount the 15 million “illegals” because that fits a narrative. No figures I’ve seen from even questionable sources places that number that high.
And in the cruelest turn of all, he recommends the cash payment to those in need, “and leave the rest of us alone.” Sorry Mr. W – I don’t subscribe to the “I’ve got mine, screw you” philosophy.
But then, his purpose is not to talk rationally about health care. Rather he would like to take cheap shots at democrats as “sex crazed” and “dingy.” While I might, too, get behind criticism of some of the folks he names, it wouldn’t be for the same reasons. It would be on more substantive grounds.
But so it goes…
December 27, 2009 at 11:54 am
There is reality and illusion and unfortunately delusion. We are 335-340 million and 92% of Americans are insured. There is no real basis for the 30 million uninsured number other than statistical probability–it may be higher depending on how many illegals are in the U.S. (10-20-30 million). They are illegal, whatever the number, and it is bad enough for Texans, New Mexicans, Coloradans, Ariaonans, etc., etc., to be told they will pay for Louisianans (Landreanans), Nebraskans (Nelsonians), the socialist from Bernie the socialists folks from Vermont, Liebermanans doddering Doddites,and Kerryites. That number is in flux and may be declining with people going home since there are so few jobs. It is a fact that Americans of the insured group–the vast majority, like the insurance they have.
So, what’s the issue? It is far cheaper for all to give insurance or expand public care for the very small percentage of uninsured. Commerce clause aside, it will be a tough court fight to fine or jail people if they do not want insurance (of course it makes sense to buy medical insurance). As Everett Dirkson said about billions: “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” The only problem is now we are dealling with thousands of billions (trillions), massive debt never seen before anywhere in the world. The debt for my 5 year-old grandaughter when she is ready for college will be $185,000 or more that she will owe.
By the way, the polls include: Rassmusen poll; NYT poll; Washington Post poll; WSJ poll; MSNBC poll, CNN poll… all are on target in part or entire: 67% of Americans plled do not like the bills (either); Congressional approval is at 18-23% approval and with 65%-70% negatives; Mr. Obama is at the lowest approval of any President ever at this juncture, even the that of Mr. Carter–don’t even need Fox polls. States are looking at issues of constitutionality and looking at taxing legality. 12 states have said they will not accept the legislation on theree state constitutional grounds and financial grounds the legislation. They cannot meet the unfunded mandates and object to paying for the state shares of states with senators who accepted the payoffs. Sunday newspapers around the U.S. have lead editorials asking why their states and senators failed to get their payoffs for the legislation.
The disater that is the Obama-Biden administration has even sunk below the Carter administration and the Clinton administration at post-Lewinsky and Whitewatergate times. Clinton rebounded by leaning right; Carter did not get a chance to do more harm and it is likely Obama will fade into the past after the likely 2010 recantation of the electorate. The concerns in polls are unemployment 10(+)% measured and 17% actual, the economy, and property. That is demonstrated by poll after poll. The failure of the Reid/Pelosi squired leadership has been to play a left of center game in a right of center playing field. The failures of Mr. Obama is, is a lack of talent, experience and capability, failed foreign, environmental, economic, military policies, failures that are creating the opportunity of the lackluster Reid and Pelosi to step up to the plate and, as is apparent, strikeout.
December 28, 2009 at 1:18 am
Mr. Wolberg,
A brief response. First, if polled, I would oppose the current health care “plans” before both chambers of Congress. So, at that point we agree. However, I doubt we’d agree far beyond our mutual opposition. I oppose the plans b/c they don’t go far enough.
Second, I don’t know where the 92% insured figure comes from. I’ve read where you conceded the 47 million and then through some sort of exclusion reduced that number to around 15-20 million. Primary in the reduction of this 47 million number was the exclusion of an alleged 15 million “illegals.” I don’t know your sources for this calculation, but I’m fairly conversant with the literature on this subject and I’m unaware of anything approaching what you say.
As for people in love w/ their plans, most who answer these polls have never had to access their plans for more severe illnesses. Polling those who do have insurance who later find that the insurance doesn’t “cover” what they thought it would yields decidedly different results. Anyone who has studied this subject even at a cursory level knows that the 82% satisfaction rate is – shall we say – overstated.
As for the rant against various democratic senators, I say your comment speaks for itself. Golly, senators got something for their votes! I’m shocked. Like that never happened during the good ole days of the Bush Administration and republican dominance of the Congress. Oh, wait. I seem to recall something about a bridge. I’ll have to get back to you about that.
As for President Obama’s “fade into that past” after the likely (future) “recantation” by the electorate in 2010, I assume you mean that if the democrats lose the mid-years (which is likely under any circumstances) Obama is assured of being a one-term President, a la Jimmy Carter. A word of advice – there’s a long way to go. You cite 10% (17%) unemployment as a possible death knell for the administration and democratic “control” of Congress. That may happen, but if the unemployment rate goes down, or more importantly the job creation rate goes up (two entirely different things),then the 2010 narrative changes. A year is an eternity in politics.
A final point about something that seems to exorcise folks opposed to the mandate to purchase insurance. I have a difficult time seeing anyone jailed for refusal to purchase insurance. Fines will be the order of the day. And, even under the current Court’s reduction of the scope of the Commerce Clause, there isn’t much chance that the Clause will be employed against the mandates.
And so it goes…