Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (556370)	3/22/2010 11:43:33 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577071

Is that why a Canadian official chose to have heart surgery in America? Care available to every American citizen....yes? Al =================================================== How Mr. Williams came to put his heart in the hands of Joseph Lamelas, a highly skilled minimally invasive surgeon in Miami, has more to do with his high societal status. As a Premier who is also very wealthy, he was able to obtain what most Canadians can only dream of: the inside track on the best surgeon – and the money to pay for it. He contacted fellow Memorial University graduate, Lynn McGrath, who currently serves on the board of directors at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Browns Mills, N.J. “So I phoned up Lynn and said: ‘Here's my situation – My doctors here locally suggested I get a second opinion because, you know, your heart is your heart,'” he told NTV News channel from his Sarasota, Fla., condo. “I had a good chat with him and he said ‘Look, I've got to tell you, if I was getting this done myself, there is a doctor at Mount Sinai in Miami, Dr. Joe Lamelas and my opinion is he's certainly the best in North America, one of the best in the world.'”

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (556370)	3/22/2010 12:03:56 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577071

How the GOP Made It Happen by Matthew Yglesias Many liberals were ready to compromise during health care's twisted path to passage. Matthew Yglesias on how the right's just-say-no game helped bring the left together. As health-care reform passes, I find myself in the unusual position of being enthusiastic about the bill on the merits, but disappointed that its success undermines my skills as a political prognosticator. Barack Obama’s brand of health-care reform is based on a three-legged stool that was popularized in progressive circles back in 2006 and 2007. The stools are new regulations on insurers, a mandate on individuals to buy insurance, and subsidies to low-income families to ensure they can afford to comply with the mandate. Back when this idea was becoming popularized I was, frankly, a skeptic. Not because I thought it was a bad idea, but because I thought the merits of the idea were all out of proportion to its prospects for success. Proponents, noting the basically incremental and business-friendly nature of the plan, thought it could garner bipartisan support. I, noting that “subsidies to low-income families” entails “higher taxes,” was sure that it could not, especially given Mitch McConnell’s strategic calculation that unified GOP opposition can make the progressive agenda unpopular. So when Barack Obama was criticized during the primary by liberals for lacking a mandate that would make it work and this was interpreted as showing a lack of audacity on the subject, I became more enthusiastic about Obama than ever. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards seemed doomed to risk their presidencies on a likely-to-fail big bang health-care initiative. I preferred the idea of a candidate more likely to take a more modest approach to health care and to focus his energy on issues like climate change, immigration reform, or K-12 education, where I thought it might be more feasible to move legislation with support from both parties (this, recall, was back before Tea Party madness swept the nation, when John McCain was a strong cap-and-trade supporter). But Obama went a different way and, powered by happenstance that gave Democrats a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate for a little while, he’s going to succeed. It’s a historic achievement that instantly rockets him to third place on a podium alongside Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as the key architects of the American welfare state. Nancy Pelosi, whose firm but pragmatic brand of liberal leadership was integral to the success, should perhaps go down as the greatest progressive speaker the House of Representatives has ever known. We should also, however, spare a thought for the unsung hero of comprehensive reform, McConnell and his GOP colleagues, who pushed their “no compromise” strategy to the breaking point and beyond. The theory was that non-cooperation would stress the Democratic coalition and cause the public to begin to question the enterprise. And it largely worked. But at crucial times when wavering Democrats were eager for a lifeline, the Republicans absolutely refused to throw one. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other key players at various points wanted to scale aspirations down to a few regulatory tweaks and some expansion of health care for children. This idea had a lot of appeal to many in the party. But it always suffered from a fatal flaw—the Republicans’ attitude made it seem that a smaller bill was no more feasible than a big bill. Consequently, even though Scott Brown’s victory blew the Democrats off track, the basic logic of the situation pushed them back on course to universal health care. Today, conservative anger at the Democrats is running higher than ever, and for the first time in years the GOP leadership’s blanket opposition has won them the esteem of their fanatics. But in more sober moments in the weeks and months to come, my guess is that the brighter minds on the right will recognize that their determination to turn health reform into Obama’s Waterloo sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Universal health care has been attempted many times in the past and always failed. The prospects for success were never all that bright. Many of us, myself included, at one point or another wanted to try something more moderate. But the right wing, by invariably indicating that it would settle for nothing less than total victory, inspired progressive forces to march on and win their greatest legislative victory in decades. thedailybeast.com