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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (134392)	3/23/2010 2:28:01 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542907

Kate, I've got to go right now, but briefly (very briefly)-- 1. Congress and their staff will have buy their insurance from the exchanges, which will keep the exchanges more honest than they might otherwise be; 2. This bill is far from the "Final Word on Health Care in America." It is more of an outline, the beginning of a transition to a more rational system than the one we now have. It will be tweaked and redone many times over the next decade, as people find out what works and what doesn't.

To: Katelew who wrote (134392)	3/23/2010 4:01:10 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542907

<<<The bill's basic theory is to try pretty much everything in the hopes that some of it works out This doesn't cut it with a lot of people.....shades of that old 'leap of faith' thingie :) >>> There are a lot of short comings and you would be right going on and on about it but the basic rationale is this: Something has to be done. If nothing is done, the current system will stay in place for at least another generation or so. Republican administrations, from Ronald Reagen on thru George W Bush, have made it clear they are not going to address reforming the system in any rational manner - incrementally or otherwise. The current system is not sustainable. Moreover, the current system is immoral. The current system is expensive largely because it is an immoral hodge podge. Every government capable of governing and who have the means to provide universal health care to all their people have done so. That is clearly the trend. It is inevitable that even China and India will also have to address this problem real soon. The alternative to providing universal health care is to allow people to literally die in the street. You can parse it any way you want, but there are nearly 50 million people in the US without health care insurance at any one time. You can make up any number you want about how many of these people can really afford it but choose not to be insured. But even if you make up excuses and just for arguments sake you can rationalize away 40 million people or so and can come up with a number that is less than one million people that fall into this category - you are still, in effect, saying that you are willing to let these people die in the street. I understand your position about charity, means testing and other gimmicks to remedy this situation - but whatever - there has to be a plan of some sort - but I just don't see this gimmicky type of plan ever being realistic and avoiding letting people die in the streets. You can only put off what we have to do for so long by piling on gimmick after gimmick to delay the inevitable. That is why we are in the mess we are in. That is why our health care system, even though it is the best system in the world for a lot of people, costs so much and still not serve a whole bunch of people. We are putting off doing what has to be done with all kinds of gimmicks. But I understand the motivation for putting off universal health care. Reasons are different for different people. But at the end of the day - the delay is immoral.

To: Katelew who wrote (134392)	3/23/2010 4:32:16 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542907

... the problem with the plan isn't the overall amount of cost itself, it's the share of the cost that the government will now pay, once the plan is fully in place. This is why "the country doesn't believe the savings are real"." I agree. What I haven't heard articulated, however, is that this greatest weakness of the legislation will ultimately be its greatest strength. Why do I believe this to be true...because when the cost of providing health care insurance shifts even further from American households to the government the government will finally make the tough choices that will be necessary to bring the cost of health care down. Our legislators are not going to long tolerate a wasteful, inefficient health care system that takes an ever increasing share of spending from their favorite programs. In the end we'll adopt a single payer plan and find ways to reduce wasteful health care spending. That's the track we stepped on this week. The details of the plan we adopted are, in the long run, virtually immaterial. So eat your livers out right wingers cause you're right on where we're headed and forever wrong on whether we should go there. Ed

To: Katelew who wrote (134392)	3/23/2010 8:09:56 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542907

"Krauthammer's Take [NRO Staff] On the question of repealing Obamacare: The first question is, will the courts act on this. I think there is a very good case, a very strong case, you can make that the commerce clause has never been used to force an individual to engage a contract with a private institution, i.e., an insurance company, here. Although — so I think there is a strong case. But I cannot imagine that the courts will overturn a piece of legislation this large. So, just as a practical prediction on this, I think it's unlikely. Although I would like to see Justice Alito write the overturning opinion. But then I think there is a larger issue here. I think ultimately Obama understands that he has just added an unbelievably large entitlement onto a country drowning in debt. He is not stupid. I think he anticipated this, and I think he, from the beginning, had a plan. And the plan is he is going to use the deficit reduction commission, which will report only after November — and I'm absolutely sure it will recommend something new in American history, a national sales tax which is called a VAT [value-added tax] in Europe. All the Europeans who have the kind of entitlements America is now going to have — health care and all the others — need the VAT, because it's a gusher of income for the government. And once you have that — even the very small level of one percent or two of a national sales tax — that's how the liberals think they will be able to fund this new, very expanded entitlement state. It's the way it's done in Europe. It's going to have to be done here. And that, I think, is going to be the argument in the presidential election of 2012. On the agenda of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting: The question is will they [the Obama administration] insist on no Jewish construction in Jerusalem. No government of Israel, left, right, or center, would ever accept that. But . . . Israel wants negotiations. It's the Palestinians who have said no negotiations unless you have got a [settlement] freeze, which has never happened in the 17 years of Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians." corner.nationalreview.com