[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Don't fall into the partisan trap, commander. A healthy (no pun intended) dose of respect for both sides from both sides would probably do more to further this debate than any of the foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric we keep seeing.

I agree with you, both sides need to start respecting each other. I might not agree with cap and tax, or the current US health care reform proposal, but I can understand and respect those who do. We, for example, don't agree over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but neither of us start tossing out insults and accusations over it.

That being said, it's frustrating when you do see so much rhetoric, especially since the last year or so. Maybe there was this sort of rhetoric during the Bush years, but I guess I was oblivious or contented since my "party" was in power.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A healthy (no pun intended) dose of respect for both sides from both sides would probably do more to further this debate than any of the foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric we keep seeing.

Part of the issue here is a philosophical divide. The Democrats want government controlled healthcare and the Republicans are asking under what Constitutional authority such a thing is allowed? Because it isn't.

The Preamble of the Constitution, which has legal force, says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Promoting general welfare and *providing* it are two vastly different things.

Some of us do not want government health care in *any* form. Compromising this with the Democrats simply isn't possible.

The Democrats, conversely, ideally want the government to run every aspect of health care. As in their 1993 proposal, private health care would be illegal.

And they don't want to compromise that goal.

The American people, as we see in Massachussetts, don't want Obamacare either. So if the Dems push on this they can count on losing all 78 of their *iffy* seats in November plus they can count on losing some of the seats they think should be secure, like in California with Sen. Boxer.

Personally, I would bet on the Dems pushing.

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No, what you suggest is incorrect. I have heard current Republicans also speak out in favor of access to healthcare for all. They want it done in a fiscally responsible manner, which will minimize Big Government control is all.

And exactly how do they intend to do that, and why did they make no effort while their guy was in the WH and they controlled congress? By definition, the people who don't have health care can't afford what the insurance companies are charging. So without big bad government to step in, how do the Republicons propose to get health insurance to those people? If you look at fiscally repsonsible, Canada, with it's socialist medicare is doing a lot better than the US. But then every other country is doing better than the US, fiscally, and in many cases results wise too.

[xerxes]

$1:

The Democrats, conversely, ideally want the government to run every aspect of health care. As in their 1993 proposal, private health care would be illegal.

I'm sure you've noticed that this isn't 1993 and that the Senate bill is more conservative than what was being proposed under Clinton or even Nixon if you want to go there.

And since when do Republicans care about the Constitution? Where was the outrage when Bush, in the name of National Security, was whittling away the protections granted to citizens of the Us by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution?

[ShepherdsDog]

What I can't figure out, is why these people are howling about the government health insurance. This is for the people who are currently uninsured or under insured. Everyone else can keep their private medical insurance and HMOs, as this legislation wasn't meant for them.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

And exactly how do they intend to do that, and why did they make no effort while their guy was in the WH and they controlled congress?

Dunno, "exactly". I know there was something called the "Boehner plan". As I understand it, it was less about mandating healthcare, in that you had to have it, or there would be penalties, than it was about making healthcare available to those who needed it, but couldn't get it.

Boehner said stuff like this...

$1:

When you really boil this down, there are about seven or eight million people in America, those with pre-existing conditions, those who are what I would describe as the working poor, and some early retirees who have a difficult time getting health insurance. We can help those people get health insurance and still bring down the cost of health insurance for the 85 percent of Americans who have it and think they pay too much for it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 98956.html

I don't know if Boehner's was the only plan, I just know it's the one I heard about.

The thing I know for sure is I heard many Republicans speak on the pro side for healthcare being available to anybody who needed it.

To be honest I just started getting interested in American politics recently. I don't really know a lot about what Bush, specifically, may have done, or not done concerning healthcare. Why? Does it matter?

[martin14]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

What I can't figure out, is why these people are howling about the government health insurance. This is for the people who are currently uninsured or under insured. Everyone else can keep their private medical insurance and HMOs, as this legislation wasn't meant for them.

probably because the people who have private insurance would also
be paying for the government program with extra taxes.

Doubtful the government program could pay for itself.

[N_Fiddledog]

The major bitch I hear all the time from "the howlers" is this one...

They don't want big government controlling what they call the "1/6th of the American economy" health care represents.

They seem to think there might be problems if that happened.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

xerxes xerxes:

But didn't you hear? Taxes are communism. And besides, the GOP hasn't shown anything resembling the will to compromise on anything. Their whole agenda lately has been to act like petulant children and say no to everything.

And the Democrats are supposed to compromise on what?

That's what got the Dems into this dilemma is that they got arrogant and thought they didn't need to listen to the people who didn't want the leftist utopian health care plan.

Consider that the single most left-wing state in the Union just voted in a Republican and that should tell you something about the problems the Dems have with listening to their own base.

Really?? Cuz Romney was in until 2007. Kinda blows yer theory of MA being the most left wing state. I'd think left wingers would have stayed away from Romney, or did the Dems have another dead head running against him in 2003?

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

What I can't figure out, is why these people are howling about the government health insurance. This is for the people who are currently uninsured or under insured. Everyone else can keep their private medical insurance and HMOs, as this legislation wasn't meant for them.

Because it has to be paid for, and would be by a tax on current health coverage. The idea is "I'm alright Jack, I'm in the lifeboat."

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Really?? Cuz Romney was in until 2007. Kinda blows yer theory of MA being the most left wing state. I'd think left wingers would have stayed away from Romney, or did the Dems have another dead head running against him in 2003?

And he governed from the left, bringing in universal health care for all er, Massachusettsians. He didn't turn right wing fruitcake until he ran for prez.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Really?? Cuz Romney was in until 2007. Kinda blows yer theory of MA being the most left wing state. I'd think left wingers would have stayed away from Romney, or did the Dems have another dead head running against him in 2003?

And he governed from the left, bringing in universal health care for all er, Massachusettsians. He didn't turn right wing fruitcake until he ran for prez.

Come to think of it, that's another answer to the question just how do Republicans plan to bring in healthcare for all. I heard Brown say yesterday it's something which should be done at a state level. You'd expect him to say that, because he voted for it as a state senator.

Not all Republicans agree with Brown, but his side is defended here.

BTW I saw the break down during the election. There were more Independents than Democrats, or Republicans. Generally it's thought of as a blue state though. I think the last federal republican senator before Brown was in the 70s. I think Obama was voted in with something like 69% in Massachusetts.

[andyt]

As I said before, if the Republicons were serious about bringing in health care, they would have made a bigger push when they had the power to do so. As for state level - should people really have or not have insurance depending on what state they live in? We're bad enough in Canada with medicare not being portable. We should have a truly national system as well.

[N_Fiddledog]

I don't know if America should, or should not have universal healthcare. What I'm saying is Republicans are not universally opposed to healthcare for all. Handling the matter at a state level is another example of that.

Incidentally many, on all sides of the political spectrum, are becoming unsatisfied with the Massachusetts experiment. They say it's not working. The Republicans say it's because the neo-comms from the other side got in there, and messed it up.

[andyt]

It's not working because it still uses private insurers and just subsidies people by making those how already have health care pay more tax. As long as the insurance companies are in there, it's never going to be a financially effective system. Why give so much profit to the insurers, when govt can do it so much more cheaply?

Republicons are not opposed to health care for all, as long as it doesn't cost anything. Just as they are not opposed to many social programs, they just don't want to pay taxes to support that. They just live in la la land that way, ever since Reagan.