Why we are not "winning" the health care battle.

[SoCalDem]

We sign the checks for our health care payments, or we see it in black & white on our paystubs. We KNOW what it costs us now.

Because there is not a "cut and dried" plan chosen to be "the one", all discussion about it is amorphous and impossible to explain in any cogent manner.

It's as if we are car buyers at a lot, and the saleman wants us to sign the papers, but he cannot tell us how much the car invoice price is, or how much the car payments will be, or for how long.. He will only tell us that it's a beautiful car, and we'll love it.

What's missing is a definitive head-to-head comparison of what is the norm NOW, vs what the "new" norm will/could be.

Of course the easiest thing would be to just let people 50-64 sign onto medicare, and just charge them a surcharge for early entry, and to extend S-Chip to children until they reach 21.(again with a surcharge).

For people 21-50, a basic public plan with "buy-ins" for maternity coverage, or chronic illnesses should be all that's needed, and just bump up FICA to cover it.

Another thing that would be helpful to people would be to have families from Canada, Germany, France, UK, etc, with 2.7 kids, comparable jobs & family situation, sit down at a table and lay out how it's paid for in their situations... how their care is given, paid for, and what the quality is... how much they pay out-of-pocket.

The congresspeople who are trying to hold these meetings have nothing concrete to tell anyone, and that makes them a juicy target for the goofballs who have their message clearly defined, and easily voiced ...LOUDLY.

Their message? NO..NO more taxes...Go slow.. You stink..You're a socialist.

Thinking people know they are full of shit, but the media eats this stuff up, and is really enjoying pounding the president for even suggesting that there's a better way.

The sad thing is that Obama had a mandate to change things, and in early Feb, he could have rammed this through, as a public/single payer..with 51 votes. Back then the republicans were reeling from their second electoral spanking in a row, they had no power, and it could have been done. The whole bipartisan charade was just a time-waster. republicans had NO intention of ever being truly onboard with anything this preseident had/has to offer.


The more time congress has to "kick around" an idea, the more convoluted & unworkable it gets. This issue is a prime example of how it ends up D.O.A., or if passed, weak and uninclusive.

[annabanana]

1. We are, actually. It's the media saying we aren't.

We are up against a huge, profitable industry.

[SoCalDem]

3. I agree , to a point, we will get "something", but it will not be what we signed on for

We need "Canadian-style" , but we'll get far less, and it will cost more than what we have now,..mark my words..

The strangle-hold of Insurance/pharma/hospital,inc. is not going to go quietly into the sunset.

[Captain Hilts]

2. As was the case in '94, Democrats are blocking it. nt

[tularetom]

4. I'm not sure we aren't winning it

Of course you would never know that from what you learn from the in-bed-with-the-insurance-companies media.

But you are right on in that there is no black and white, well defined plan, there is nothing for these poor bastards to try to sell. All they can do is try to defend something they can't describe. I wouldn't want their job and I wouldn't blame them if they were discouraged.

[mopinko]

10. i agree with you. we are winning.

the president hasn't wavered. although the real guts of the thing will be decided in committee, when it comes out, anybody who wants to get re-elected will get on the bus.

[dgibby]

5. You've made some excellent points.

Unfortunately, the unrecking crew has been here. Somebody doesn't want the truth to make it to the greatest, I guess.

I know the Administration wanted Congress to come up with a bill rather than have it come from the White House because of what happened to Hillary's program, but IMO, this is a prime example of the old adage, A camel is a horse designed by a committee. It's a train wreck going someplace to happen.

Letting Max Baucus and the Blue Cross Dogs drag this out until the Aug recess has guaranteed the opposition an opportunity to go on offense.

I have an awful feeling that whatever we get in the way of reform is going to be as bad as, if not worse than what we have now.

[SoCalDem]

7. Thanks.. Everyone probably goes to those meetings

at least the "real" attendees.

They go, knowing what they pay, and they are hoping to find out that they will get a 25% discount, or that their tax will go up 2% or that there will be some tangible FACT, that they can take home with them.

[slipslidingaway]

6. knr - As it stands now the right wing is attacking on least two

fronts, socialism and the cost.

If Obama had come out in favor of single-payer the cost issue would have been removed.

Of course Obama did not campaign for single payer, but he did not campaign for mandated insurance either.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. He campaigned specifically against mandated purchase

He very clearly said that was a major difference between him and Clinton, and that those who did not want to be mandated to purchase should vote for him, not her. Yet he is all about the mandates now. So this whole 'what he campaigned on' routine is one hell of a vapid argument at this point.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Exactly and people still use the argument that Obama never campaigned

for single-payer as an excuse for him to not change his mind, but it is OK to change his mind on the mandates.

:shrug:

Obama should have changed his mind on SP instead of the mandates, the Democrats are fighting the socialism charge and they are not even discussing a Canadian or UK system.

[DailyGrind51]

8. The President did not come up with his own plan, he relied on Congress way too much!

[raccoon]

9. Off to Greatest with you! nt

[unblock]

11. because we don't have spare billions with which to buy congresscritters.

as others have pointed out, we will get "something".
it remains to be seen if "something" is anything meaningful.

i note only that stocks of health insurance companies have held their own over the last 12 months. investors are not expecting to take a big hit to profits.

[nevergiveup]

12. We are going to win this.

You are giving up too soon. There will be a signed bill. It will not have everything we want but it will be a huge start in the right direction. If it only offered guaranteed insurance for millions and millions of distraught Americans who have pre-existing medical conditions that would be huge for these people and their families. I am sure it will offer more much than this but just saying.

[SoCalDem]

14. I haven't "given up", but there's a BIG difference between "guaranteed"

insurance and insurance that people can afford, and is also decent coverage.

If I am the ACME Insurance company, and I am NOW denying you coverage because you are diabetic and have asthma, once the law changes I will be required to "offer" you coverage.. So.. Here's your coverage..and it's only going to cost you $1500.00 a month.. You can't complain, since I did not DENY you coverage.

Or

You have a plan now where your boss pays $200 a week, and you pay $100 a week..now you change jobs, and take that "portable" coverage with you to your new company that does NOT have any insurance plan.. Your new boss says "I'm NOT gonna pay $200 a week toward your coverage.. you still have your portable policy, but now YOU get to pay $300 a week..

It's always about the details..

[nevergiveup]

17. I agree with you totally

It is all very complex and the potential realistic success of any bill will be in the details. Insurance that someone can not afford is worthless. I am probably being overly optimistic. Most of my optimism is based on the belief that Obama will not settle on a bill that does not substantially help those people in the letters he reads every day.

[nightrain]

16. maybe the talk was good, but the plan was not to provide the goods??

how awful to wonder that.

[Silent3]

18. What does the health care debate matter to you?

Isn't all just about different ways to pay for and access the terrible tyranny of western medicine for you anyway? Shouldn't we just stop paying for all of it, according to your views, and by sheer force of mental attitude alone improve our health?

[SoCalDem]

19. mmmmmkay..

:silly: :rofl: :shrug: :eyes:

[Silent3]

20. Most of the people in GD...

...probably aren't aware of the mystical crap you dump into the Skepticism/Pseudoscience forum on a regular basis, or they too would be scratching their heads that you have any interest in the health care debate, at least in terms that have anything to do with any current proposals.

[SoCalDem]

21. You must have me confused with someone else..

I am not mystical and have never been to that forum.. didn't even know it existed :)

but whatever floats your boat..

I will admit to skepticism borne from 60 years of living through many administrations that lost they way, after promising a lot. I still have hope that somehow, a rabbit will emerge from the hat :)

perhaps there is someone here with a similar name, who posts stuff you don't like..

I do know that some PUMA site has a person who emigrated from here, and appropriated my name, so I am always irritated when I google for something, and stumble on "their" stuff with MY name (they hate Obama :(..):grr:.. I was not web savvy enough to go there as myselt & get banned, so no one could use my name:(

[Silent3]

22. My bad!

I did have you confused with someone else.

Color me very embarrassed. :spank: :blush: :blush: :blush:

[SoCalDem]

24. hahahaah see my next reply

:loveya:

[SoCalDem]

23. found out why you "picked on me"

mouse-over to see.. I whited it out

CanSocDem is not me


I think this is the person you meant

:)

[Silent3]

25. Yep, a momentary lapse of screen name dyslexia.

:(

[SoCalDem]

26. Back when '00 happened there was a poster called SoCalDemocrat

who did statistical analysis, and I got emails from CNN :rofl:

I spent a lot of time re-directing & ecplaining that I was NOT the person:)