Health Care Reform’s Final Stand in 2009
Sen. Lieberman is at it again, frustrating the party with which he caucuses:
In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.
This potentially spells the end of the notion (in 2009 at least ) of expanding Medicare to qualified individuals as young as 55.
Now Senate Democrats face what is perhaps their final and most difficult challenge: Even after stripping out the proposed Medicare expansion and other such provisions of concern to the fiscally cautious, the bill before them would still have “a lot of good things in it,” according to Lieberman. Will they pass that bill? Will they enact this “lot of good things”? Or will they allow what some consider “the great” to become the triumphant enemy of “the good”?
Presumably, rational minds would argue: “Take what you can get. Pass now the reforms that would do good (e.g., preventing the exclusion of people who have pre-existing conditions) — and return tomorrow to fight once more for the rest.”
The trillion-dollar question: Are there 60 senators and 218 representatives with rational minds?
23 Responses to “Health Care Reform’s Final Stand in 2009”
So are we to believe that opposition to the current proposals is irrational?
Personally, I've always wondered how any rational mind could believe that the laws will be “fixed” later. Can anyone cite an example of that?
I doubt it, I think too many are thinking Santa Clause will slide down the chimney and deliver the dream list of the progressive faction of the Democratic party which is obstructing putting in place the type of reforms that have wider bipartisan support. I think I saw Nancy Pelosi sitting on Santa's lap in the mall last weekend.
Another note:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091214/D9CJ3V…
ProfElwood — Consider this: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31159. It is not, perhaps, entirely germane to your question, but in the ballpark, I think.
Maybe if BOTH parties had an actual interest in making affordable healthcare available then something RATIONAL might actually be accomplished… as opposed to the current dog and pony show.
Not really. What I'm seeing in health care is a lot of government/private cooperation that generally hurts those getting the services (i.e. AMA setting unrealistic and counterproductive standards restrictions, drug and insurance companies preventing competition). Congress seems dead set on leaving these enormous killers in place while playing around with some piddly stuff that may, or may not, be able to save a little in the long run. In other words, it can sometimes fix problems caused by the private sector, but never seems to fix problems caused by itself.
In other words, it can sometimes fix problems caused by the private sector, but never seems to fix problems caused by itself.
yup.
Or… we could just cut to the chase:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31169
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31171
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31178
Yup, the word, “sociopath” is underused in todays America, particularly in the world of politics.
If rationality is really a concern, then the first order of business is to vote 90% of Congress out of office. Make that 99%.
Thanks for the trip to Wonderland, I'm sure Alice would appreciate it too.
I expect Alice would probably find Washington more bizarre than things like a white knight talking backwards, hookah smoking caterpillar, etc.
Shoot, why don't we just must make Joe Leiberman and Rush Limbaugh prez and VP? Seems like most of the dynamics revolve around them anyway. Screw the American people, they're just an annoyance.
lol, how bad does the current health care “reform” effort have to stink for even the Democrats not to all vote for it? And for it to have plunged in popular support in the past year? By this point it's so patched together, twisted into a pretzel, and encrusted with more special interest giveaways than an old ship has barnacles that it would be better sunk at the docks than in the middle of the harbor.
Lieberman is not only doing the country a favor, but perhaps saving the Democrats from self annihilation. Obviously it's a thankless job. I just hope he finishes it.
Wrong question. It should read:
“…that the laws will be “fixed” later. Can anyone cite an example of that?”
Of course.
Prohibition.
LOL
The Noble Experiment, is the period from 1919 to 1933,
A little long, for today's impatient public.
Maybe it would be better if the current “reform” crashed and burned. The legacy of the failure would be attached to the republicans (as well as an attention-seeking Joe Leiberman) for one thing, and in addition, the stage might then be set for real reform later on. This package looks like a bad joke to me.
These two links show how farming went from 19th century to todays modern farming techniques:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31159
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/0…
There's nothing wrong with it taking into next year to get done, no difference than with prisoners in Guantanamo. It gives the Dimmies time to reconsider their more silly and harmful initiatives, and to try for a Change [tm] to be more rational, less rushed and stupid.
There's nothing wrong with what's happening now — the Dimmies are desperate and trying still to salvage themselves, after cracking up from overreach all year.
There's nothing surprising about this, either. After all, did they show even the most basic or fundamental intelligence (not to mention honesty), by reforming and rescuing Medicare (and Social Security, which is the other enormous “entitlement” that they, too, said, or admitted, needed reform, which Obama vowed to do) before seeking to expand federal entitlements? No surprise at all, especially once the rushing (once more, this year, on unneeded, destructive legislation) began.
“By this point it's so patched together, twisted into a pretzel, and encrusted with more special interest giveaways than an old ship has barnacles that it would be better sunk at the docks than in the middle of the harbor.”
What's coming in the conference ought to be burned in the builder's yard. Pest control!
“how bad does the current health care 'reform' effort have to stink for even the Democrats not to all vote for it”
They're just getting truly desperate now. They're also ridiculous to stoop this low just to finish this year.
The lib Dems in the House are still the looniest “leaders” involved in this, and they may retake the initiative in conference the way the Senate is going. What's going to be interesting is how hard the House tries for more “robust” “reform” and how many Dem Senators recoil at this.
The Senators and some lefties are “discovering” the art of “compromise” and “pragmatism,” etc., now (trying to make what is largely a string of self-engineered defeats seem better by slathering all kinds of euphemistic blather on them). I wonder how poor Pelosi will have to outdo the Senate stuff if whatever final legislation is passed has no big liberal prize in it. (I also will listen to the far-lefty talkers and learn which of them are steadfastly defiant and angry at the Dems, and which among them will join the attempt to make the end result gooey with sugar-coating.)
” We had to reduce food costs, so that families could spend money on other goods, and resources could flow to other economic sectors. And we had to make farming less labor-dependent, so that more of the population could enter non-farming occupations and support economic growth and development.”
The Dems have flirted with a worse lunacy than intervening badly in health care, when it comes to energy policy, and environmentalist politics packaged as “global warming” or “climate change” “science”-based policy. (Politicized science for social engineering, is the ugly truth.) Energy should be made more cheap and plentiful, and become like a commodity. The Dems are seeking the opposite intentionally, if and when not inadvertently or coincidentally with their political-agenda stupidity. That's next after health care “reform.” (and immigration “reform,” possibly)