Is Obama a fool?

[thekid]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

BR

I am with you on the cost control issue but I am encouraged by the CBO estimate yesterday and they are an unbiased source. However there are about 3 dozen states already lining up to sue the government over certain language in the bill so who knows what this will morph into. Optimistically if this bill does show that it is possible to reduce health care costs perhaps Congress will be emboldened to introduce some real cost saving measurments.

[Feanor]

BR

I am with you on the cost control issue but I am encouraged by the CBO estimate yesterday and they are an unbiased source. However there are about 3 dozen states already lining up to sue the government over certain language in the bill so who knows what this will morph into. Optimistically if this bill does show that it is possible to reduce health care costs perhaps Congress will be emboldened to introduce some real cost saving measurments.

Rome wasn't built in a day but somebody had to lay the first stone.

The Republican "we need to start over" is a transparent ploy.

[thekid]

Rome wasn't built in a day but somebody had to lay the first stone.

The Republican "we need to start over" is a transparent ploy.

No but they at least knew where they were going to build Rome.... There was never much of a plan here and they cobbled together a bill that cut too many deals reflects that approach.

The GOP leadership was never going to go along with Healthcare reform and they really only used it to get back to their position on Tort reform. However there were/are some moderate Republicans with some interesting ideas on cost control. After the dust settles from this bill I would hope some of the Dems will reach out to these people and get some cost containment measurements passed.

[Feanor]

No but they at least knew where they were going to build Rome.... There was never much of a plan here and they cobbled together a bill that cut too many deals reflects that approach.

The GOP leadership was never going to go along with Healthcare reform and they really only used it to get back to their position on Tort reform. However there were/are some moderate Republicans with some interesting ideas on cost control. After the dust settles from this bill I would hope some of the Dems will reach out to these people and get some cost containment measurements passed.

I must admit I have a bias (and it certainly pertains to the Canada as much as the US). I don't care for legislation cobbled together by "committee", that is by members of congress (or parliament). ("A camel is a hourse designed by committee.") Comprehensive legislation -- anything really new -- needs to be framed by "the government", i.e. Cabinet with the assistance of appropriate experts including departmental bureaucrats and other experts.

And I personally believe what you ought to need to get powerful, new legislation through congress/parliament is a majority, not a consensus. Many Americans seem wedded to the concept that there ought to be substantial "bipartisan agreement". Get over that if you what to get anything done. But again, to have an actual majority when your party has a nominal majority you have to have party discipline. Nowadays the Republicans are lot better at that then the Democrats.

[blackraven]

There certainly needs to be bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Our government was established to have checks and balances so that no one person or party can have total control. Both parties need to get together and form a frame work sharing their idea's and expertise or lack of there of in our governments case in health care refrom. No one party should make reform. It should not be rushed and it should be done right with the ability to tweak the reform. I find it tiring, disheartening and embarissing that both parties feel the need to vote along party lines even though they may know that the party line is wrong. I just wish that they would get rid of all the old cogers in congress and the senate and start with new, brighter and younger people with new idea's.

[Feanor]

There certainly needs to be bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Our government was established to have checks and balances so that no one person or party can have total control. Both parties need to get together and form a frame work sharing their idea's and expertise or lack of there of in our governments case in health care refrom. No one party should make reform. It should not be rushed and it should be done right with the ability to tweak the reform. I find it tiring, disheartening and embarissing that both parties feel the need to vote along party lines even though they may know that the party line is wrong. I just wish that they would get rid of all the old cogers in congress and the senate and start with new, brighter and younger people with new idea's.

There is no longer a possibility of bipartisan agreement, hence it is waste of time to pursure it. And the next generation will be worse than the present.

The Republican Party is apparently ahead of the Democrates in understanding this. The takeover of that party by the extreme right wings, (plural, i.e.), the financial and the socio-religious, is almost complete. The dominant elite of the Party mocks compromise: any compromise must be by the other side in their direction. They are utterly determined to expunge the few residual moderates of their own and focus on the complete distruction of the Democratic Party and any and all other moderate, liberal, or left-leaning constituencies.

My original reason for asking, "Is Obama a fool?", pertained to his evident inability to understand that compromise with the new, reactionary Republican Party is impossible.

On the up-side, look at it this way: the US is simply becoming more like the world in terms of rigidly voting a long party, and left vs. right wing lines -- this is the world-wide norm.

[blackraven]

Any time one party loses the majority, the other party makes it its mission to make the other party look bad and defeat them. Its a viscious circle and the american people are the ones that suffer. Important bills get watered down or earmarked (which by the way, Obama said he would not do and he has not lived up to that promise. He's just like every other lying politician who will say and promise anything to get elected) and they end up becoming useless legistlation. Both parties need to see the light and put their differences aside and really make a difference. But alas, I will never see this in my life time. The founding fathers never intended for the country to be run this way.

[Feanor]

...
Both parties need to see the light and put their differences aside and really make a difference. But alas, I will never see this in my life time. ...

I'm glad you're agreeing with me, BR.

Americans have to deal with the new reality -- which is that the Republican Party has become rigidly financially and socio-religiously right wing. No longer an entity that is disposed to compromise.

The great triumph of Republicans has been to join the traditional, weath & private enterprise party with the socially and religiously conservative consituency -- the latter used to vote mainly Democrat, (see "Dixiecrats" or "Yellow Dog Democrats"). There is not inherent or imperative connection between the two, but this distructive alliance began to form in mid 20th century, finaly reaching its stride with Ronald Regan. It isn't quite complete, (see "Blue Dog Democrats"). Even in the '08 election, despite Democrat gains in most of the US, in certain areas, e.g. the "Bible Belt", the vote continued to swing even further towards the Republicans.

...The founding fathers never intended for the country to be run this way.

Indeed they did not. But let's remember they were devising a totally new form of govenment, the republican, to replace the parliamentary. They could not have foreseen all the consequences of that.

[thekid]

Indeed they did not. But let's remember they were devising a totally new form of govenment, the republican, to replace the parliamentary. They could not have foreseen all the consequences of that.

Several of the Founding fathers did forsee and were opposed to the formation of political parties. Some such as Adams believed they would corrupt policies and result in a less democratic process. They would be turning over in their graves if they saw the effects of lobbyists or the Supreme Court's ruling that corporations have many of the same rights as voting citizens.

For many of their faults on certain issues it never ceases to amaze me how the Founding Fathers essentially got it right. It would help if today's politicians would actually go back and read some of the writings of the people who designed and organized this country. I think we might be better served with a few more History majors in Congress and less lawyers....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

BR, I think you are missing a fundamental point here. The republicans do not want to work with the democrats or the white house, they want the white house, the house, and the senate back. That is their only agenda. You cannot sit down and work with anyone that does not want to work with you. The repubs have no plan, and that has been demonstrated time and time again. I do not know if you remember this, but the repubs called a press conference to annouce their plan for health care reform. When they threw down a plan that had no detail in it whatsoever, and when questioned about it, they looked silly and confused. Their plan is to oppose any and everything the white house wants to do, plain and simple. You cannot work together in that environment.

The repubs(and some democrats) are owned by big business. In spite of the fact we nearly had a financial melt down, the repubs are fighting financial reform as well. They drive up the deficits with their war spending, and then when it comes time to help the American people, we all of a sudden cannot afford it. Does it make any sense to you that we can afford to fight two wars, but we cannot afford to insure our own people?

I do not look at this as being rammed down my throat. I look at this as a necessity to the financial health of our country. If the present conditions continue, this country is going to be bankrupt in short order. As much as I don't like this bill, at least it will save the country over a hundred billion dollars over the next ten years, and one trillion ten years after that according to CBO scoring of the bill. I believe this bill is the first step to correcting a problem that has gotten completely out of hand.

[recoveryone]

Obama is only doing what every other administration has try to do for the last 80 years, check your history. From Teddy Rose-thur Clinton from either side of the parties this has been on and off the front burner, Johnson was the only one that came close when he got Medi Care put into law. So don't think this is some new plan for America, its that Obama feels its time to stop talking the talk and walk the walk. I may not agree on some of the points, but I do take my hat off to the man for standing his ground on the issue.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obama is only doing what every other administration has try to do for the last 80 years, check your history. From Teddy Rose-thur Clinton from either side of the parties this has been on and off the front burner, Johnson was the only one that came close when he got Medi Care put into law. So don't think this is some new plan for America, its that Obama feels its time to stop talking the talk and walk the walk. I may not agree on some of the points, but I do take my hat off to the man for standing his ground on the issue.

I agree with this. And each time the men you mention attempted to change the system, he was met with this much foolishness, lies, delay tactics, and campaigns of misinformation. I think the most painful part for me is to watch the negative racial angle, and overt selfishness some segments of the opposition have deployed. I was reading on the Huffingtonpost this morning that some democratic house members were verbally abused and spit upon when they left congress yesterday. This issue has brought out the absolute worst in some Americans, and it is sad to see and hear.

[3LB]

I understand some people who have "theirs" are afraid they'll have to live a diminished life in order for others to have "some". The republicans have played this angle up for years. The claim the Dems are the fear mongerers and try to make isolationists out of voters. I understand why there are those who are against a healthcare plan that's designed to fail. But the fear that some have over this is beyond me. And yes, there are those who are getting downright ugly over it. But why aren't people getting just as angry over a war that's being waged over "old Bush family business"? They're afraid a viable healthcare plan will take money out of their pockets...and give it to Americans? Instead we allow a war to rage for a decade, we sit by while corporations recieve bailouts (bailouts they intern won't pass on to the American public). We watch as corporations take the biggest slice of the pie and put a barbed-wire fence around the rest of it and we just accept it, because we're comfortable (for now).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do not know. Nobody in America has a PH.D in future prediction, so this whole notion of designed to fail might be a bit premature. Most of the folks that claim design to fail have not read the bill. The bill has quite a few good points in it. The problem is its bad points are going to be contentious going forward. Without market competition, I know a few see even though they are going to get subsidized heavily in the beginning, will be nervous as the rates they pay continue to go up, and they can actually afford less and have fewer choices while their out of pocket expenses go up even with the government subsidies. This is a reality under this bill as it is currently written. There are no controls on costs in this bill, and if rates keep going up, the cost savings the CBO predicted on the bill will not happen. That is a big worry if it cannot be fixed going forward.

Even though the votes are there to pass the bill, it may not have a chance of becoming a reality. The republicans are going to use this bill to win votes in November. If the American public is as consistent and predictable as I think they are, they are going to win a lot of seats, perhaps enough to pull this bill apart piece by piece over time. If this comes to pass, then it is toast for the America as we know it. This will embolden corporations to pay off our politicians to vote in their favor on every legislation that comes down the pipe that effects them. A corporate controlled America is not going to be a fun place to live, but I see it heading in this direction, if we are not already there.

[blackraven]

I am totally for health care reform and unversal coverage for all but this bill sucks! It will force people to buy insurance who are on the fence financially or who are just starting out in life like HS and college graduates. The insurance companies will get richer and the gov't and the average american poorer. Unless they make major changes in the cost of medicine, the abuse of ER's and the american attitude that I have to be well and happy all the time then this is doomed to failure. Look, I'm an ER doctor and we collect only 28%. We will collect a lot more if the bill passes. I dont care about that but I do care about the abuse of the system that will occur. The ER's will become more crowded, patients will become more demanding and wanting cat scans and mri's etc. This will break the system that is already overcrowded and abused. The government needs to be a gate keep by limiting and rationing certain care and passing product and medical liability.

Taxes will go up, there will be less money flowing into an already stagnant and suffering economy (except for the insurance comapnies).

[thekid]

Well it looks like it is going to pass. On to the next argument in which people will question other people's patriotism, lawyers and lobbyists will get paid six figures to be on both sides of the issue and in the end anything resembling a hard choice will be avoided like the plague. Welcome to leadership in the 21st century........

[Feanor]

I am totally for health care reform and unversal coverage for all but this bill sucks! It will force people to buy insurance who are on the fence financially or who are just starting out in life like HS and college graduates. The insurance companies will get richer and the gov't and the average american poorer. Unless they make major changes in the cost of medicine, the abuse of ER's and the american attitude that I have to be well and happy all the time then this is doomed to failure. Look, I'm an ER doctor and we collect only 28%. We will collect a lot more if the bill passes. I dont care about that but I do care about the abuse of the system that will occur. The ER's will become more crowded, patients will become more demanding and wanting cat scans and mri's etc. This will break the system that is already overcrowded and abused. The government needs to be a gate keep by limiting and rationing certain care and passing product and medical liability.

Taxes will go up, there will be less money flowing into an already stagnant and suffering economy (except for the insurance comapnies).

I suspect your wrong on several points here -- you are another FUD victim.

First & foremost if the bill was going to be lucrative for the insurance companies they'd have lobbied for it, not spent $100s of millions opposing it.

I don't see that ER rooms will be more crowed, even in the short term. If people can see doctors or go to urgent care clinics there will be less demand for ER treatment.

Just because people ask for CATs and MRIs doesn't mean they have to get them. If they can't be simply refused, they will necessarily be put on waiting lists even if they have insurance.

Ture enough "gate keeping" will be necessary, likely by government -- I'm glad you conceed the need for government oversight. In the medium term the need will become evident, and then maybe even some Republican pond-scum will support it as necessary cost containment.

[GMichael]

maybe even some Republican pond-scum will support it.

That's not very nice.

[Feanor]

That's not very nice.

You know me, GM. I call 'em that way I see 'em.

[GMichael]

You know me, GM. I call 'em that way I see 'em.

But I don't feel like pond-scum.

[Feanor]

But I don't feel like pond-scum.

In my objective opinion there are two kinds of Republicans:

• The avaricious super-rich, a possible majority of the 2-3% minority of really rich people, and
• The self- or otherwise deluded.

I leave it to you decide the category to which you belong.

[GMichael]

In my objective opinion there are two kinds of Republicans:

• The avaricious super-rich, a possible majority of the 2-3% minority of really rich people, and
• The self- or otherwise deluded.

I leave it to you decide the category to which you belong.

You left one out.

The ones who keep an open mind about everything without falling for the liberal (or the avaricious super-rich) hype.

[Feanor]

You left one out.

The ones who keep an open mind about everything without falling for the liberal (or the avaricious super-rich) hype.

Humm ... well, there is likely the odd such person -- doubtless you are one. But they are damned few.

Almost by definition, liberal policies (as distinct from liberal politicians) serve a wider swath of the population than do right-wing policies. Bear this in mind. The hard core right-wing delude the a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stoking their bigotry and fear of change.

[GMichael]

Humm ... well, there is likely the odd such person -- doubtless you are one. But they are damned few.

Almost by definition, liberal policies (as distinct from liberal politicians) serve a wider swath of the population than do right-wing policies. Bear this in mind. The hard core right-wing delude the a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stoking their bigotry and fear of change.

I see both sides as deluding a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stroking their bigotry. I don't not accept one side as truth, and the other as crap. The answer does not lie on one end or the other. It's somewhere in the middle. But the middle has no party to represent it.

Do we need healthcare? Hell yes.
Is this the Bill that's going to get it for us? Maybe. I sure do see a lot wrong with it, as well as right with it. As always, too many outside forces have had their influences.

What I don't do is claim that either extreme is any better than the other.

[Feanor]

I see both sides as deluding a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stroking their bigotry. I don't not accept one side as truth, and the other as crap. The answer does not lie on one end or the other. It's somewhere in the middle. But the middle has no party to represent it.

Do we need healthcare? Hell yes.
Is this the Bill that's going to get it for us? Maybe. I sure do see a lot wrong with it, as well as right with it. As always, too many outside forces have had their influences.

What I don't do is claim that either extreme is any better than the other.

"Either extreme"!?! Now that is delusional.

It is a source of bemusement to me that so many Americans see the "middle" to be somewhere between the Democrates and the Republicans. By world standards the whole of US politics is severely skewed to the right.

The true of the matter is that the Democratic Party is a centrist party with a smallish minority who are slightly left-leaning. For its part, the Republican Party at one time had a fair number of right-leaning centrists but we have to go almost back to the Eisenhower era for that. Today the Reps are utterly dominated by the financial and socio-religious right-wings who are extremists indeed. They are working hard drive out the very few remaining moderates.

The notion that the right answer is always a compromise or somewhere in the middle is a logical fallacy -- and that is certainly the case on the Dem / Rep scale.