Entry: 60 votes Sunday, December 20, 2009



Just read an article on the health care bill on  Slate   Barring a desertion by Lieberman, which is not out of the question, the bill will go to a Senate vote next week.  From what I can glean, this watered down bill could potentially do more harm than good.  It certainly seems like a gift to the insurance companies which will have even more business without the competition from a public option.  How does this effect people on the fringes who will have to buy health care or face a tax fine?   Will they opt to pay the fine?  Some people (in the comments section) say that the bill, watered down as it is, will still be a marked improvement over what we have since insurance cos will not be able to drop those with existing coverage, or deny others wilth existing conditions.  

 
Had an interesting conversation with a bass player friend about it today.  He is an Obama supporter to a fault.  He is extremely progressive, but he sees the political side as well.  He is saying that Obama wanted to get things done incrementally.  He realized a public option was a non-starter and at least wanted to get the trigger in.  He thinks Harry Reid, by forcing a progressive issue caused a backlash on the right.  I think it's reading too much into it to presume to know what Obama thinks, but I do agree that there is a political element here that is driving things.  
 
If health care passes and things marginally improve is this huge?  Many administrations have tried and failed.  It's sad and disheartening the levels of greed and hatred in this country.  

   3 comments

http://clinicanoesis.com
June 10, 2015   02:58 AM PDT
 
Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I have really loved surfing around your weblog posts.
cheap moncler jackets for wome
October 9, 2012   05:10 AM PDT
 
It does not follow that because we do not subsidize smoking, we should not regulate unhealthy activities. Costs and savings are not the only variable. The fact that obesity creates costs is merely an additional reason to regulate it, not the only one. The main reason is its danger to an individual. ,311653,http://jazzpoultry.blogdrive.com/archive/524.html
J f Z
December 22, 2009   01:41 AM PST
 
Yeah. It's disheartening that we couldn't just tell the GOP to fuck off and get a comprehensive overhaul to single payor universal healthcare like the other first-world, capitalistic democracies have implemented.

If you're up for watching a really good Frontline report about healthcare (VOD), check out:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments