[Winstonm]

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama embraced a handful of Republican health care ideas Tuesday to lure votes of Democrats wary of a more partisan approach as he prepared to spell out his final package for a sharply divided House and Senate, where its fate is unsure.

In a bit of political sleight of hand, Obama said he might include four GOP-sponsored ideas in his plan

Just for clarification purposes, I conducted an in-depth poll of Republicans I know and talk to (my idiot brother) and came up with the top 4 Republican healthcare plans.

1. Just Say No. (It is thought this plan had its origins with Nancy Reagan.)
2. Tax cuts for the rich so they can afford to pay for this *****.
3. Make Haliburton the pharmaceutical distributor for the middle east.
4. Add a Soylent Green option to Medicare

Have I missed any?

[cherdanno]

I think the real conservative plan would be
- catastrophic insurance for everyone, plus
- ending tax exemption for health benefits.

I would even kind of like that plan. To keep the government small, the catastrophic insurance should just be medicare-like, financed by taxes and paid directly by the government, so that the government doesn't have to go into the business of enforcing mandates, and deciding what is acceptable mandatory insurance.
I also realize it has little to do with the Republican party of today.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

We can trust Obama to not let his plan cost the taxpayer anything.

He promised to close Gitmo.

He promised to put the health care talks on CNN.

He said that unemployment will not go above 8%.

He will not sign bills with earmarks, unless they are buying needed votes from his party ranks.

He will cover more people with better coverage for the same amount of money.

How he plans on filling the current shortage of health care workers is not mentioned.

Will he cut their pay and add more hours for each worker, that should attract more and better people.

Over a year with a super majority and still no sign of the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in waste, fraud etc.

I do want change in 2010 and I really want it in 2012.

Regards,
Robert

[helene_t]

spotlight7, on Mar 3 2010, 06:50 AM, said:

Over a year with a super majority and still no sign of the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in waste, fraud etc.

Super majority or not, everything gets filibustered.

American politics will remain dysfunctional until either
- Democrats get some 70 senate seats.
- Some moderate republican becomes president. Has to be moderate to avoid GWB-like conditions. Has to be republican to avoid filibusters. Maybe McCain was a missed chance.

[kenberg]

After a hard day's work, well make that a hard few hours of work, I was sitting around bullshitting with friends, mostly of a liberal inclination. The dysfunctional nature of American politics was the subject matter. Senator Shelby was mentioned, and of course Senator Bunning. Doom and gloom, partisanship reighs supreme, etc. I decided to try a quick poll. I asked that everyone, of whatever party allegiance, raise a hand if they would like their party to move towards the center. Well, there was me. One of the guys described the senate health care bill as a right wing monstrosity and felt it would be good to move it towards the center, ie leftward.The guy on my (physical) right explained that health care costs twice as much here as in other countries and we have a shorter life span. I responded that I didn't see much in the bill that would lower the overall costs and that the best way for me to increase my life span would be to get to the gym and lose some weight. He explained that it was selfish bastards like me who are ruining the country and left the room.

A republican friend of long standing came in and contributed his vote for moving our parties together but overall there was little support for it. I think he mostly felt I was so outnumbered that I needed some help. Mostly the view was that our political system is a total disaster and those other guys need to shape up.

Apropos of nothing in particular, I was watching The Good Wife last night. A male character sent a present to a female character, it turned out to be a copy of Going Rogue. She sent back a thank you gift, a copy of Going Rouge. It struck me as funny.

[PassedOut]

spotlight7, on Mar 3 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

Hi:

We can trust Obama to not let his plan cost the taxpayer anything.

He promised to close Gitmo.

He promised to put the health care talks on CNN.

He said that unemployment will not go above 8%.

He will not sign bills with earmarks, unless they are buying needed votes from his party ranks.

He will cover more people with better coverage for the same amount of money.

How he plans on filling the current shortage of health care workers is not mentioned.

Will he cut their pay and add more hours for each worker, that should attract more and better people.

Over a year with a super majority and still no sign of the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in waste, fraud etc.

I do want change in 2010 and I really want it in 2012.

Regards,
Robert

Looks like you are disappointed with Obama's performance.

[jdonn]

I am a bit disappointed with spotlight's arguments...

[nigel_k]

helene_t, on Mar 3 2010, 10:20 PM, said:

spotlight7, on Mar 3 2010, 06:50 AM, said:

Over a year with a super majority and still no sign of the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in waste, fraud etc.

Super majority or not, everything gets filibustered.

I wish.

If everything got filibustered the national debt wouldn't be increasing at a rate of $20 per person per day. And there is no reason to believe that electing a Republican would change anything. It's just too attractive politically to spend money on people who can vote today by taking it from people who can't vote or are not even born yet.

[kenberg]

I am willing to place a bet that the Senate bill, with some modifications, will pass. As we approach the fall elections, the Democrats will need to carefully construct their arguments as to why this is a good thing. Of course "good thing" always invites the response "good for whom?". I expect that features that would be found appealing would be:

A. Can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
B. Insurance won't run out with a prolonged illness.
C. Can keep coverage in the event of job loss.

If the Dems can make the case that these features can be implemented successfully and at a reasonable price, then they may survive the fall elections.

I would suggest that if the bill is passed on, say, a Tuesday then by Wednesday morning at the latest the Dems need to be able to give straightforward answers to these matters that will stand up to inspection. I think most people can imagine how, at some time in the future, such features would benefit them. But, of course, all three would, on the face of it, cost a lot. Actually a very large amount, if the features are taken at face value with no restraints at all. The money has to come from somewhere,and they had better be able to explain where. Although I am no historian, I believe that it is correct that with virtually every domestic spending plan in history the explanation for funding has been that we will pay for it by eliminating fraud and waste. Most people have noticed that fraud and waste are still with us. Tax the millionaires, maybe inflation adjusted to billionaires, is another favorite. But there is only so much water in that well and there are a lot of plants that are drying out.

It will be an interesting election in November.