Friday, July 31, 2009
"Get Your Government Hands Off My Medicare"
This column by Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes some good points, especially about how misinformed the American people are on health care. In my humble opinion, the costs of NOT having a public option are starting to seem greater than the costs of instituting one. I heard on the radio that costs could double in 10 years if there isn't real cost control built into the system. That's with the status quo, not with the reform system. Now there may be doubts among liberals about the best way to solve this problem, and there may be ideological objections from conservatives, but there has to be consensus by now that reform is needed. In 10 years, the problem will be worse, and the fixes will be even more expensive. The harm to the American economy and to everyday lives is too great to ignore. Republicans may say they favor a slower pace, or a slightly less liberal plan, but in reality they are pushing hard to stop reform because they are scared of losing even more power if it turns out to be a success. 2010 is looming, and not just for elections but for the all-important census/redistricting. If Democrats pick UP seats in a mid-term election, the Republican party is toast. The economy shows signs of turning around. They may not be able to pin any of the economic woes on the President by 2010. They are losing ground demographically and ideologically to an energetic President. It's time for Congressional Democrats to get on board and support reform.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mmmm, I don't know much these days as my brain is "kid-fried" & I'm definitely too tired to think most of the time.
But I do know one thing & that is that LESS government is better than MORE government. And if this great health care plan really is the best option of all other plans on the proverbial table, then why won't members of Congress be expected to join the ranks like the rest of us will be FORCED to do so? And what does your brother think of this plan since his rights & way of life will most definitely be affected if passed? Just curious...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=104716
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Union-workers-would-be-exempt-from-Dem-health-care-tax_06_23-48810402.html
http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
Unfortunately, Garden Gal, the articles you posted and your general comment that "less" government is better than "more" are basically the types of misinformation I'm really upset about. As Mr. Krugman points out, the question isn't less vs. more government. The question is, can we afford 10 more years of the status quo? The government is already deeply involved in health insurance in this country, and that is generally a good thing. The first article you posted, about Congress's alleged unwillingness to "sign up for" the plans they are "forcing" on everyone else, skews the debate by focusing on a hypothetical personal choice that sounds ominous but is really just grandstanding by reporters and politicians who oppose the plans. I don't agree that the public option forces anyone into any type of insurance. The "qualifying" of health insurance plans is just another form of regulation similar to what is already done to ensure that Americans can be covered despite pre-existing conditions and other factors. The second article discusses a possible union exemption from taxes on health care benefits, which I have no problem with, as health care benefits for union workers are one of the few areas where unions still can show some tangible benefit to their members. The anti-union efforts of corporations to control costs by cutting off benefits are one part of the problem of under-insured Americans. The third article is an analysis of the text of the bill that was drafted by one committee in the House of Representatives, which may or may not be the final form of the legislation, but it raises all kinds of red herrings about a National Health Care ID (oh my!) and other scary-sounding government programs. I just don't buy their analysis, but I have to admit I haven't gone line-by-line through the bill. I don't have the ability to refute their points line by line right now, but I believe their analysis is skewed by ideology. Your final post is the text of the bill itself, and I thank you for posting that solid information. I may have a chance to read through the bill soon and comment further. I'm no legislative expert, but I'm betting there are liberal ideologues just as willing to praise every line of the legislation as there are conservatives who object to each point.
Yeah, I do believe the articles are wrung through a "conservative" filter, of sorts, that their ideology "skews" their opinion. But so does yours.
Which is why I think it's imperative that these congressional members take the time to read this all-important bill before rushing it through on a vote. That is one "fact" I have heard repeated on both sides of the debate, that most members simply aren't even thoroughly reading the darn thing because it's over 1,000 pages long. Well, how can anyone, regardless of which side of the river they're on, trust that it's a good thing, or a better option, if the majority are simply going on assumption that it's better because it deviates from the status quo?
I do understand that anyone can find almost anything written that will support their views on things these days, which then "skews" it in either direction. Fact is very rarely solid fact anymore, unfortunately. Just as you receive all kinds of information with a Democratic "flavor" to it, so I receive the Republican "view" of things. So how can 1 side be 100% right & the other 100% wrong - & if it's not 100%, then how can one know how much weight or stock they should put into what they're reading???? So confusing!! :)
Now get on up here for a visit so we can hash this thing out & come up with a solid plan that will appease both sides of the coin!! :)
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/?CFID=71571029&CFTOKEN=30473315
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/08/democratic-leader-laughs-at-reading-the-healthcare-bill-before-passing-it.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25594.html
Thanks for posting those additional articles -- I really like the Politico one. And you're right, the truth is probably somewhere between the extremes of 100% pro-reform and 100% status quo. I am about as pro-reform right now as one can get, but I still have doubts about whether this particular reform will do the job. (See my earlier post about David Brooks' column on cost control, for example.) The thing that angers me the most is when politicians or news outlets seize on one "fact" and blow it out of proportion, just to make a headline or cause confusion. I'm probably guilty of doing the same thing -- it's inevitable that opinions shape the packaging of facts -- but it angers me to see one side of the debate using the other side's genuine efforts to arrive at consensus as a bludgeon to wipe out all possibility of reform. More later...I'm home for lunch, and may have time to post again soon. Thanks again, and thanks for the invitation!
Post a Comment