Thread: Fixing Health Care

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Oh I didn't think it was a massive take-over of health care, but I don't think enough has been done to reform what is out there or try new avenues to justify the public option program at all. I personally dislike when government paints with a broad brush and does no follow up to adjust, which the public option seems to be to me.

I wasn't trying to say that's what you believed, I was saying that many people who oppose the public option do it for some paranoid reason like a "government-takeover of health care."

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Show me where his constituents want a public option. Do not show me where the question is about health care reform, but specifically the public option. The democrats only want him gone because he doesn't tow the line for them and is a veritable wild card, which doesn't sit well with the two party system they (and the republicans) try to maintain.

It's Connecticut. A state that voted overwhelming for Obama. They do support it, though: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/200...n-connecticut/

And the reason Democrats aren't happy with him is because he caucuses with the Democrats, which means he essential IS one. Also, the platform he ran on in 2006 is the complete opposite of what he is doing now. One thing he said was he was with the Democrats on everything but war. He's a liar who ignores his constituents, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

So one senator is worth all this hub bub?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/..._care_overhaul

Despite a one-on-one meeting Tuesday with President Barack Obama that lasted 30 minutes, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said he still has concerns about abortion and other issues. Nelson, the only known holdout among 60 senators whose votes are needed to move the bill, said it had been his third meeting in eight days with the president.

Obama "made a strong case for passing health care reform now," said Nelson. "But I think it still remains to be seen if it was compelling." The legislation needs to be improved, he added, and liberals resisting his proposals — even saying the bill should be scrapped — are running out of alternatives.

I would think Sen. Nelson would be villified more..... since he is an actual democrat.

Don't fall for media spin on this Fovezer, Lieberman isn't the lynchpin that the media makes him out to be.

Oh, I don't care for Nelson much, either. Or Landrieu. Or Lincoln. Or a few others. The problem is those people weren't as upfront about filibustering their own parties bill AND they have constantly been conservatives. Lieberman was for the public option when he ran in 2006 and just a month ago he was for the Medicare buy-in that he now against. I'm not "buying into media spin", I just happen to know the facts and one of those facts is that Lieberman is a disgusting little weasel.

I wasn't arguing against the article. I was merely stating that in the agricultural example, the government suggested new methods of doing things. They didn't make their own farmlands and grow crops for people who couldn't afford to. Like I said, if they want to come in and revamp some methodologies and some processes to make things run more efficiently, then go a head. Show the current insurance companies how to run more efficiently (like showing the farmers how to grow crops more efficiently). But if you want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to make your own health care (Crops), then that's not in line with the comparison. With this point, I'm not arguing the predicted success or failure of the idea. I'm simply saying the comparison in the article isn't as cut and dry similar to our health care situation.

And trigger, when I say we will pay more taxes, I am talking about the American people as a whole. I'm not going to be ok with a hike in taxes for anyone (let alone the "wealthy") if it's for an absorbent amount of money for a project that I am not confident this administration can execute successfully. Whether or not they can or will, we cannot tell until we look at it in hindsight, but if the past is any indicator, the success probability of government being productive with taxpayer money isn't in our favor.

Why does our initial move have to be a Trillion dollar move? Why does it even have to be all encompassing? Perhaps hand pick a few areas and try out the new ideas on a smaller scale. If it works, incorporate it. If it doesn't, then failure is minimal. It doesn't have to be all or nothing at the moment.