Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Keep tabs on health care

My column for the Daily News is online.  It’s called, “Keep tabs on health care.”  Here’s a portion:

Here’s where we are: The House Democrats won’t pass the Senate version of the bill because they don’t trust the Senate Democrats to pass a fix for it. The Senate Democrats won’t pass the fix because they don’t trust the House Democrats to pass the Senate version. It’s also problematic for the Senate Democrats to pass a fix for a bill that hasn’t been passed into law yet. President Obama is promising liberal House Democrats that they can vote for the Senate bill without a public option and they’ll “improve” it later even though the president has no ability to keep that promise with the current makeup of the Senate. A handful of pro-life House Democrats are refusing to pass the Senate version because it doesn’t include a ban on funding abortions. And all of the Democrats are refusing to scrap both bills and start over because they are afraid of being seen as unable to govern.

   Whew, got all that? There are some lessons here.

   First, the whole reason the Democrats are having so much trouble passing a bill is because it’s a steaming pile of, er, dreadful legislation that the public strongly opposes. It’s an election year. Many Democrats are looking at the polls and would like to remain in office after the election despite their leadership’s desire to sacrifice them on the altar of health care reform. Perhaps Democrats should learn a lesson about trying to shove through legislation that their constituents oppose.

   Second, huge pieces of legislation that dramatically change our relationship with government should be difficult to pass. Such gridlock is the result of the genius of our Founding Fathers. They built us a system where competing interests must align before major changes can happen. Such alignment hasn’t happened yet in the health care debate, which is a warning that it shouldn’t pass.

   Third, just look at how little trust there is between all of these politicians and remember that they know each other better than we know them. If they don’t trust each other, why should we trust them with our health care?

(9) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1810 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Dems who triangulate against Obama with a “no” vote on healthcare will have a better chance of being re-elected in six-months. 

    I realize Obama is trying to spin that the other way, but he’s full of crap trying to save himself. 

    Sure Gwen Moore will never lose her House seat.  But if you had a guy like Kagen and Kind step out and say “Yeah, this bill is a POS and my constituents don’t want it” they both would immediately improve their re-election chances by a lot. 

    Obama is a complete lost cause who is going to be a one-termer.  The sooner the Dems realize that tying their fortunes to he and Rahm is a losing cause, the better for them. 

    And frankly I hope they do it.  I’d gladly trade having Kagen and Kind in the House another ten years versus having to deal with trying to repeal this awful bill.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 0019 hrs


  2. The democrats are going to pass healthcare because they are going to lose in the elections anyway.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 0648 hrs


  3. If students are willing their argumentative term paper to be properly done, they will have to utilize the famous exploratory essay writing service, which would be a good point to buy an essay at.

    Posted by RutledgeEricka on March 10, 2010 at 0725 hrs


  4. Obama continues to be taught that it’s far easier to say things than to do them.

    This is a lesson that anyone who comments here, but does not try to help solve the problems they bitch about, should take to heart. For the record in my local community I am on the planning commission and local fire board.  Just small town stuff but it is my contribution.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 0834 hrs


  5. It wouldn’t be hard for Obama to “do something”.  All he has to do is put up some modest bill that has serious tort reform and at the same time provides some type of benefit or subsidy for people and families with serious illness that are unable to get insurance through normal channels. 

    That bill is passed by 90% of Congress and the American people all like it.

    Then see how it goes and take step two next year.

    But he feels like he needs to do the big trojan horse nationalized medicine bill.

    This mess is on Obama.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 0843 hrs


  6. People who are for this don’t want health care insurance. They want some one to pay for their health care. If you have $1000’s of dollars in health care costs a month you want to be able to buy “insurance” for $600/800 hundred a month to have some one else pay your bills. Thats really not insurance.
    Now if you have been paying for insurance then yes if you get sick then the insurance co should pay your bills.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1112 hrs


  7. wait, lets see if I can get this straight. I cannot “bitch” about the state of things because I don’t contribute (I.E. part of the government)? That’s kind of funny because each and every one of us “contributes”, whether you are a republican or a democrat. We are forced to contribute. It’s call taxes. If that isn’t good enough, then I want my money back.

    That to me is like saying that if I got a bad burger at a restaurant, that I can’t ask for a refund because I am not on the staff.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 0458 hrs


  8. While we all see the democrats struggle to figure out their position, the
    best option for the country, how we as a nation value the health of our people, exactly what do we see the Republican doing to help the nation that deals with a 13 - 20 % increase in Health Insurance, and increases in health care cost, and increase in pharmaceutical cost, increase in elder care cost…...
    Let see for 10 years they did nothing and they continue to do nothing.  I dare say they are great leaders of doing nothing.
    I continue to not understand why a party of: business, economic conservatism, straight shooters that view less as more, how they find the current health care system acceptable.  School boards have 10 % increases in health insurance annually, auto industry, small businesses and all small and large companies suffer similar fate.  The system is paper work heavy and way too many fingers (30% administrative overhead) in the system.  It is not conservative in any fashion.  This is an acceptable system?  Cause I sure don’t hear any complaints about this system from the right.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 0927 hrs


  9. The system is paper work heavy and way too many fingers (30% administrative overhead) in the system.  It is not conservative in any fashion.  This is an acceptable system?  Cause I sure don’t hear any complaints about this system from the right.

    I fully agree with the above, Mary.  It is certainly a good reason to not blindly vote Republican in the next election.  What I can’t figure is if this is a comment designed to make people stay Democrat or if you are suggesting an alternate solution. 

    I hope you are not suggesting that the Democratic method of doing something bad is better than doing nothing, but what is the alternative?  What, indeed is the alternative? 

    Remember, a strong independent vote that loses is still not a wasted vote.  It sends the most listened to message to seat winners.  If people are angry enough to give a significant (as little as 5% for a single candidate) vote to an independent then both parties look very carefully at what that candidate was offering.  It is not nearly as hard to sway an undecided vote from Rep to Dem or Dem to Rep than it is to get someone to vote outside the two parties.  The rules are preset to help the major parties, the money flow is set to go to the major parties.  When an independent wins or even garners a significant portion of the vote, it endangers both parties.  The only really non-partisan legislation passed in the last 200 years has been legislation that protects the two parties in power from being ousted, except by each other.  Bank it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 1437 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.