Health Care Resolution

10 Comments

1. 

   BooMan on June 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm

   If you have Facebook, watch this.

2. 

   MikeInOhio on June 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm

   Yes.  After all, there are only 24 hours in a day.

   And then there’s eating time and sleeping time.

   But it seems like there have recently been enough dumb statements to fill the rest of the day with those fits you’re talking about.

3. 

   DaveW on June 18, 2009 at 3:14 pm

   This is the Daschle that almost became HHS honcho except for his tax flummery. Nominated because he was such a leader in health care reform as I recall. Now all he cares about is being able to say “bipartisan”. And Obama is praising the idiotic “compromise”, aka gutting.

   I, too, try not to throw a fit when some Democrat says something stupid, but Daschle was not supposed to be an ass. But gotta say, Obama is really starting to piss me off with this cultlike obsession with “bipartisan”. He tried it, didn’t work, now give it up already.

4. 

   corvus on June 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm

   I’m beginning to think we need to start trying to get our representatives to sign pledges not to pursue bipartisanship.

   Bipartisanship erodes democracy. When I go to the polls and make my choice between the available alternatives — which are already meager by the standard of more modern democracies — I don’t want the turkey I voted for to turn around and adopt the positions of the candidates I voted against. It’s a betrayal, not a virtue, no matter what the punditocracy may think.

5. 

   no3reed on June 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm

   E.J. Dionne today:

   Where did we get the idea that the only good health-care bill is a bipartisan bill? Is bipartisanship more important than whether a proposal is practical and effective? And if bipartisanship is a legitimate goal, isn’t each party equally responsible for achieving it?

   Almost sounds as if he were addressing a certain fellow WaPo columnist, doesn’t it?

   Continuing:

   [M]ost Republicans want to take themselves out of the health-care discussion altogether. For reasons of principle as well as politics, they want to rail against the costs of government action and assert — against what I would insist is overwhelming evidence — that somehow we can find a way for the market to solve our health-care problems.

   Republicans have every right to do this. But they can’t refuse to play the game and then go on to condemn Obama and the Democrats for being insufficiently bipartisan.

   It’s one thing to compromise to pick up votes, which, one hopes, is what Baucus is doing. It’s another to compromise in exchange for nothing at all. The first is bipartisanship with a purpose. The second is the bipartisanship of fools.

   Thank you.

   • 

     dada on June 18, 2009 at 4:12 pm

     that somehow we can find a way for the market to solve our health-care problems.

     like this? it wasn’t that long ago that the healthcare providers were telling us they can could trim $2 trillion in healthcare costs…guess it’s like steve martin said, l forgot.

     as the sf chronicle says, You can’t get there from here:

     Not if there is defined as health insurance coverage for everyone in the United States, lower costs for the millions of insured who are being crushed by its price, and relief for employers who are burdened by an expense many wish they could wipe off their books.

     And not if here is where the health insurance political debate is stuck.

     …

     No one has seriously proposed an overhaul that would achieve what a single-payer system has been shown to accomplish in most other countries: universal coverage with lower costs that delivers better results than we now get in the United States.

     Instead, Democrats have all but abandoned the idea that everyone be covered without exception. They’ve so far avoided endorsing clear cost-containment measures that would pass the budget-scorers’ test of legitimacy. The wished-for savings that Obama says he wants the private insurance industry to achieve are exactly that – wishes.

     The winners so far are health-industry lobbyists. They sense that their chances of protecting the interests of big insurers, drug companies, medical specialties, technology companies and the like are improving every day. They’re probably right.

     ain’t gonna happen…

     • 

       dada on June 18, 2009 at 4:34 pm

       re: the health-industry and their lobbyists sentiments, here’s what the market thinks:

       …health care (+2.2%), financials (+2.5%), utilities (+2.3%), and consumer staples stocks (+1.9%) all made impressive gains.

       Health care stocks outperformed the broader market for the third straight session. The latest advance came via support from managed care (+6.2%) and healthcare facilities (+3.9%) amid an increased possibility probability that healthcare reform is going to be costlier and less expansive than expected…

       marketupdate

       money doesn’t talk, it swears

6. 

   sjct on June 18, 2009 at 3:57 pm

   I called Sen. Kay Hagan’s office in DC yesterday. I told ’em, “No health care for me, no vote for you. Is that simple enough to understand?”

   “Yes, mam.”

   “I’m going to be absolutely clear with you. I want a health care plan — not insurance — my husband and I can afford that covers everything that is wrong with us and could go wrong with us. Give me a public option!”

   “Yes, mam, I’m marking your position down. We’re keeping a tally. Thank you for calling.”

   • 

     CabinGirl on June 18, 2009 at 4:52 pm

     I called Specter’s office and told them I want to see him push for a public option…”I know Senator Specter has government healthcare, and it seems to work well for him in spite of all his health issues.  If it’s good enough for him, then it’s good enough for me. And by the way, I’m a registered Democrat, and I vote in every primary.  If the Senator wants my vote next year, he better get on board with health care for all.”

     I wonder if his staffers hate that he switched teams.

7. 

   Brendan Skwire on June 18, 2009 at 4:36 pm

   throw a rock instead.