|
ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/24/2009 10:20:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Thank you! Im not happy with these bills, but they are a step in the right direction. I learned long ago, if you listen to both sides, you are more likely to come up with the true root to any debate. And, in order to gain, sometimes you have to give. I would prefer, as Arpig said, a single payer system... but i dont think i can hold my breath that long in a capitalist society. That will take time. Baby steps... it will come.
And this goes right to the heart of the whole issue. The only value of this bill - the absolute only remotely valid reason for passing this hideous monstrosity - is the expectation that it will be an incremental law, a foundation upon which to build a better system.
But why does anyone expect that to happen? Not singling you out, Tazzy, but just a general question to everyone who thinks this means we've turned the corner and now we'll gradually evolve this utterly worthless law into a true national health care system - why do you think that will happen? How do you think that will work? What would be the sequence of events that will result in that, and why do you think it's likely that it will happen? Because I absolutely do not see it.
This is something that has the republicans very worried and up in arms over... enough to pray to god over on television...
This is something the insurance companies, drug companies, and insundry other corporate lobbyists have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent... to the tune of over a million dollars a day.
Public option isnt dead... but i dont hold out any hope for that. Its enough, for now, that the industries who have made the most money are worried about health care reform.
Public option absolutely is dead, and they're not worried anymore, because they won. They were worried earlier because they weren't sure how it was going to turn out. But because they fought it so successfully, they got almost everything they wanted - I mean, jesus christ, the government will now require people to buy their fucking insurance! They made out like bandits! The fact that they were worried is not an argument for believing that we'll ever get a better health care system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Just the ability to prevent eliminating people from the "haves: for pre-existing conditions is a huge step.
The "exchange" in whatever form it takes, will also be a huge step. Im curious as well to the outcome of this process.
While everyone is complaining about what it doesnt contain (and make no mistake, its not what i want either) i would rather look at what it does contain, and the potentials that may give for more in the future.
Many of these arguments were the same used for SS and Medicare... and while neither of those systems are perfect, they still work.
But what potentials? That's the point. What are the potential improvements? And why does anyone think they'll ever happen?
This bill is more of a step backward than it is a step forward, because it actually strengthens the current system and - by law - locks it into place. Obama promised health care for everyone, and the way he delivered it is to require people to buy insurance! Of course the insurance companies can't refuse to cover us now - because the government is going to force us to buy their product!
The only possible way i can see this turning out for the good is if the administrative oversights that are written into the bill allow the federal government, over the course of the next 3 years (and hopefully 7), to essentially cripple the private health insurance industry, thus forcing the country toward a public option. But that would take a far more devious intellect than the democrats show any evidence of, so I'm not expecting it to happen.
|
|
|
|
