Post #323,268
3/22/10 7:05:59 PM
|
How did prohibition end?
The people who were already doing manufacturing and distribution -- illegally -- got to keep the business. It didn't seem right to reward them for bad behavior, but it was the only way to get through the transition.
I suspect health insurance is the same way. Sure, we'd like to see some of the current players destroyed for what they've been doing. But if they win in the short term, in exchange for giving up some of the most egregious practices, isn't that ultimately better for customers than leaving things the way they are?
--
Drew
|
Post #323,298
3/23/10 8:56:12 AM
|
But it doesn't square with the chatter, is all...
for example...even after the vote...
Nancy says...
"Well, you know, some people will do anything for the insurance companies," Pelosi said of Boehner in an echo of the bitter fight over the health care bill.
If they are the root of all evil, and you have an alternative set of systems (medicare, caid, the "public option")...why still vilify them? Fact of the matter is, most Americans have insurance and most are happy with it. Why not simply say "insurance companies provide a valuable service, BUT there are some things they do that need to be changed and better regulated". Politically, this would be a better message...because everyone would agree.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #323,301
3/23/10 9:04:28 AM
|
but it wouldnt give people like rand ook time
gotta make it look like a battle to keep the money rolling in.
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #323,302
3/23/10 9:07:40 AM
|
Oh, sorry
wasn't I "writhey" enough there?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #323,315
3/23/10 11:01:42 AM
|
The only people happy with their medical coverage ...
... are the ones who have never had to use it.
Yes, hyperbole. But pretty damn close.
--
Drew
|
Post #323,467
3/25/10 7:07:42 PM
|
"because everyone would agree"
Ignores the political facts on the ground. The declared and demonstrated Republican strategy is to reject everything.
In terms of bipartisanship, it really doesn't matter what the Democrats proposed. The Republican position is to make stuff up and scream SOCIALIST. No matter what.
That position cost them a voice at the table and the ability to defend what they used to claim were their values. I don't think that matters to the GOP leadership anymore, it would appear that campaign contributions and claiming the win are all that matter anymore. Representing constituents and ideas is just not that important.
---------------------------------------
Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
|
Post #323,481
3/25/10 10:54:20 PM
|
doesn't matter
the people the vote is the everyone referred to. They alienated the masses...November will see republican gains...not because they're doing anything necessarily right...just the democrats are playing into it.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #323,485
3/26/10 1:58:09 AM
|
Still doesn't matter
What percentage of those voters will be voting based on the actual content of the bill, and what percentage will be voting based on entirely fictional material that the Republican party made up?
Obama could have gone into a room with the Republicans, said "I give up, you write it yourselves" and not a single Republican would have voted for the result. And they would be, with a single voice, denouncing it as a socialist takeover.
There will be a midterm move to the Republican side. How much of that will be HCR and how much will be the normal midterm slide away from the President will be an interesting question for some of us, for others just evidence that Obama is one each of every bad thing there ever was, and two of some.
---------------------------------------
Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
|
Post #323,349
3/23/10 9:40:11 PM
|
What do you think the next steps are?
I'm wondering if the next major step might be to permit employees to choose their healthcare cover, even though their employer still pays for it.
Australia went through a similar thing with superannuation in the last few decades. For a long time, you paid into a super account that your employer chose. Most didn't allow you to pick your own. Over the years, employers were encouraged to allow this, and many retail products sprang up, many for the self-employed and small employers. Then it was made mandatory that people could pay into whichever one they liked.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #323,369
3/24/10 10:27:02 AM
|
"Are" or "should be"?
The next steps are for everyone to argue about claims that aren't true, but they're the only things that the Republicans will want to talk about. They can't discuss what's actually in the bill because A) None of their constituents actually know what's in the bill, so it's hard to score points talking about it, and B) When people are asked about specific provisions they overwhelmingly support them. It's just the bill "as a whole" that they oppose.
The next steps should be to rigorously enforce the provisions that people can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and can't be dropped if they develop something expensive. Once that actually takes hold, insurance companies will, for the first time, actually have a stake in keeping people healthy.
Then line up the insurance companies with the healthcare providers for the first time -- until now they've been antagonists -- and have them start talking about farm policy and how the current subsidies lead to massive prevalence of obesity and diabetes.
Capitalism runs on money. People won't be healthy until someone with influence stands to make more money from people being healthy. It won't happen just because it's good for people, and the right thing to do. Someone has to be making money on it.
--
Drew
|
