|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject: Houses Pushes Back On Public Option |
 |
|
Democrats in the House warn that they'll work against any bill that doesn't include a public option.
| Article wrote: |
The White House�s signal that it�s willing to back off support for a public health insurance option has sent congressional liberals into full revolt, bluntly warning the administration that no legislation will pass without a government-run plan.
A group of left-leaning House Democrats tells POLITICO that a bill without a public option simply won�t win enough votes in their caucus � a sentiment that raises fresh questions about the prospects to enact sweeping health care reform this year.
�A bill without a public option won�t pass the House,� said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee. �Not only are they weakening their proposal, but they are also weakening their hand. This is legislative subtraction by subtraction.�
...
"There is zero retreat on the grass-roots level for the public option. We are all in, and we're staying all in, because the public option is the compromise,� said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change committee, one of the most aggressive defenders of the public option.
...
The White House is clearly betting that liberals simply won�t walk away from a health-reform bill that achieves most of what Democrats want, such as expanded coverage, affordability and limits on some insurance company practices, including dropping people when they get sick. But former Democratic national chairman Howard Dean is urging Democrats to do just that � to put off health reform this year if they can�t get the public option. |
To be honest, Howard Dean has an excellent outlook on this whole topic. This idea that giving up the public option is compromise is ludicrious; the public option was the compromise, which is why it's a public option rather than simply a national health system which everyone is on by default, like it or not. Insurance companies are simply terrified of a viable form of government-offered insurance availible to everyone, not because it would compete them out of business, but because it would be bad for their profits. Their entire racket of charging excessively, offering extremely limited coverage (both regarding how much of your care costs they'll cover and regarding which doctors they're even willing to pay), and dumping customers who actually needed the serious pay outs they paid for in the first place would all come crashing down as soon as people had a serious choice outside the little confidence game they're playing. That even a moderation portion of Americans are afraid of such a thing is the work of the Insurance Industry, their Republican servants, and the Conservative media.
"Health care reform" that doesn't include at least a public option is worse than useless. It's no longer a compromise, it's a declaration of defeat, giving in to a tiny, greedy, and very loud minority. What's worse, it comes with the possibility of actually making the situation more problematic than it is now (such as would any plan that mandated the purchase of private insurance, even if that plan came with tax credits for the poor or industry regulations regarding price).
Democrats either need to try to push through a bill with at least a viable public option (and be very loud about who killed it if it doesn't pass; as James Carville said, forcing Republicans to show their true colors on an issue like this and kill the bill isn't unwise politically), or just give up on it entirely for now. Anything else is a sell-out that's very likely to be actively detrimental to our society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Dems shot themselves in the foot back in 2004 by pushing dumb ass Kerry instead of Howard Dean. I would have voted for him had I had the opportunity to do so. Not to digress from the OP or anything.
But yes, it is nice to know some Dems are pushing back. And gotta wonder why some care about the GOP. Let the GOP all vote against it, who cares?? ESPECIALLY in the house! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| I think the Dems shot themselves in the foot back in 2004 by pushing dumb ass Kerry instead of Howard Dean. |
He was completely sandbagged by the media for the Dean Scream. They ganged up on him. (I'm not telling you something you don't know, I know, but it was really a violent take down).
If the public option is absolutely what you want, there is another, more nefarious path. Like the Republicans and their "Starve the beast" idea.. You regulate the health insurance industry in such a way that no company can possibly turn a profit. Cap fees, mandate services and universal coverage. Firms start dropping like flies which panics the middle class (who seem to love their insurance and hate the instability) and they then aggressively demand that the state push through a public option that quickly becomes the only option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good idea. Leave it to the Democrats.
| Quote: |
CNN Fails to Report Woman Comparing Obama to Hitler is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat
CNN's Larry King showed the ... video of Barney Frank laying the smack down on a woman at a townhall meeting who compared Obama to Hitler. CNN left out the fact that this woman is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat.
In the full video (via Allahpundit), the woman says, "This policy is already on the way out. It already has been defeated by LaRouche." She also underscores her crazy LaRouchite beliefs by claiming that the U.S. has "30% real unemployment". No one disputes that LaRouchites are on the fringe -- but it's indisputable that they are fringe Democrats. They oppose Obamacare because they want a single-payer plan. |
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cnn_fails_to_report_woman_comp.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I asked before, but who is Lyndon LaRouche? I looked at his wiki page. Some context please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lyndon LaRouche is a wacko Democrat, definitely on the lunatic fringe, which is to say, he fits in perfectly with the Democratic Party's office holders and dominant ideology of socialism, fascism and illogical nonsense.
His speeches are a mixture of typical socialist and fascist goals along with utter gibberish when he strings together a lot of big words in meaningless sentences.
His supporters have won numerous primaries in the Democratic party and nearly took control in IL some years ago when they swept up the nominations of many of the IL State consitiutional offices in the D primary.
The Dems are stuck with him, though many are unaware or try to lie about his affiliation.
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/newamericanfascism.htm
Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism by Dennis King Chapters 11 to 15 gives history of LaRouche electoral activity in 1970s and 1980s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Larouche may call himself a Democrat, but the party keeps him as far away as possible. He has never been allowed to seat delegates, for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Larouche may call himself a Democrat, but the party keeps him as far away as possible. He has never been allowed to seat delegates, for example. |
But, he is a registered Democrat and has won numerous delegates. His supporters have won party primaries and leadership positions.
It should be embarrassing to know that the party leaders use the same methods to keep LaRouche at bay as the methods LaRouche has used to keep his competition away.
Yes. They are birds of a feather. Loons all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're saying the Democrats are tarred with his association whether they keep him away or not. Neat trick.
Besides, anyone can register as anything. Arlo Guthrie registered Republican. It doesn't mean anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's just hope those aren't just beer balls they're growing. The DCCC called here the other day for a donation and I didn't even let the poor volunteer get a word in edgewise. No more donations from me until they get it together and get this bill passed. They have their paychecks and their family's health insurance, now let's see them do their job and get something done for the less fortunate.
All the ruckus at the town hall meetings is nothing more than Capitalists stirring up the masses to do their bidding with a bunch of fear tactics. What they (the free market) is really scared of is a good dose of healthy competition.
And if LaRouche is going to vote for it, bully for him. I'm sure he has some constituents that need a public option too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
So you're saying the Democrats are tarred with his association whether they keep him away or not. Neat trick.
Besides, anyone can register as anything. Arlo Guthrie registered Republican. It doesn't mean anything. |
The LaRouche wing of the Democratic party joined because they believe that their fascist socialist ideas are best matched with the ideology of the Democrats. They have identified their fellow species members by mating with them.
So, absolutely, "Democrats are tarred with his association whether they keep him away or not." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| I think the Dems shot themselves in the foot back in 2004 by pushing dumb ass Kerry instead of Howard Dean. |
He was completely sandbagged by the media for the Dean Scream. They ganged up on him. (I'm not telling you something you don't know, I know, but it was really a violent take down).
If the public option is absolutely what you want, there is another, more nefarious path. Like the Republicans and their "Starve the beast" idea.. You regulate the health insurance industry in such a way that no company can possibly turn a profit. Cap fees, mandate services and universal coverage. Firms start dropping like flies which panics the middle class (who seem to love their insurance and hate the instability) and they then aggressively demand that the state push through a public option that quickly becomes the only option. |
I am naive and generally ignorant about politics(honestly) but surely the insurance companies would 'lobby' to stop this happening? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| I think the Dems shot themselves in the foot back in 2004 by pushing dumb ass Kerry instead of Howard Dean. |
He was completely sandbagged by the media for the Dean Scream. They ganged up on him. (I'm not telling you something you don't know, I know, but it was really a violent take down).
If the public option is absolutely what you want, there is another, more nefarious path. Like the Republicans and their "Starve the beast" idea.. You regulate the health insurance industry in such a way that no company can possibly turn a profit. Cap fees, mandate services and universal coverage. Firms start dropping like flies which panics the middle class (who seem to love their insurance and hate the instability) and they then aggressively demand that the state push through a public option that quickly becomes the only option. |
I am naive and generally ignorant about politics(honestly) but surely the insurance companies would 'lobby' to stop this happening? |
Of course they would, but they'd have a much harder time of it.
It's very easy for the Insurance Industry to lobby against government run health care, because many people have swallowed the idea that anything government run is automatically inefficient, wasteful, and terrible hook, line, and sinker (so much so that some of the Medicare seniors arguing against health care reform have not realized that Medicare is an example of the type of program they're arguing against on gut instinct). All the Industry needs to do is throw out some omnious warnings about bureaucrats standing between you and your doctor (they all ready do, far moreso than they would in any reasonable single-payer system), about how care will be rationed (it all ready is), or even to just keep using the word dangerous as many times as possible, and they'll win.
It's much harder for them to use the same tactics to argue against direct regulation of their own operations. To the public, that just sounds like the Government looking out for citizen interests and forcing the Insurance Industry to play fair (even if the regulations are so brutal that, as mises describes, the Industry literally collapses because of them). The Industry would lobby against it, but it's a lot harder, and a lot less likely to succeed, because suddenly they can't simply make up claims about death panels, or talk about bureacrats coming between you and your doctor; there would be no nebulous additions to the system they could misconstrue, only limitations and regulations of the current system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's becoming clearer and clearer to more and more people that the reform we're likely to get at this point isn't reform at all, but rather a handout to the Insurance Industry.
Disappointing, but eminently predictable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
