On one hand, the bill has some pretty worthy aims that I think most people would like. Dependents can remain on their parent’s health insurance plans until age 26 (good news for college kids, or recent grads like myself). People with pre-existing conditions will no longer get denied coverage. No more lifetime or annual limits on coverage. Preventive services will now be covered. So far so good….here’s the bill in its entirety if you feel so inclined.
But here’s my big issue with Democrats – it’s called bipartisanship, try it. Obama came in to office promising to unify our country, and he’s only making us more divided! When other historic bills like Social Security and Medicare passed, they did so with support from both sides of the aisle. In both the House and the Senate, not a single Republican voted for the bill…for the second time in Obama’s short time in office. Hey Obama, what was your slogan? Was it, “Yes We Can -- alienate an entire segment of America,”?
On the other hand, the Republicans aren’t exactly doing themselves any favors. They love to say it’s a government takeover of the healthcare industry, that it will create a massive bureaucracy, bankrupt the economy, and that it will raise taxes. Despite the fact that it’s a very one-sided look at the issue, they are still valid concerns. Ever been to the DMV? Or tried to fight a traffic ticket? Now imagine how it will be to adjust your insurance claim. And $1 trillion!? Seriously? Just to get an idea of how huge that number is, I heard that 1 billion seconds is 38 years…1 trillion seconds is 38 thousand years. Wow.
But here’s my issue with Republicans – where’s your solution, then?! Rather than saying no to everything, come up with at least something in response. And what’s with the “baby-killer” outburst? You’re making the Party look like a bunch of ignorant fools only capable of pithy name calling and dramatic disagreements. After the bill passed, House Republican leader John Boehner commented that doing so has failed the American people. Well John, you’ve failed too. Just because your constituents disagree with how Obama is accomplishing it, doesn’t mean they don’t want something to be done about it.
But like I said before, I think Obama’s goals are, in essence, worthwhile. I do feel, however, that he is going about it the wrong way. But the problem is that so are Republicans. Now they’re beginning this huge campaign to repeal the bill, and several Attorneys General, including Utah’s Mark Shurtleff, are vowing to take it to the courts. For those of you who think that’s ridiculous, it’s actually not so far-fetched. For example, Virginia has a law in place saying that its people cannot be forced to buy insurance. Still, it’s an act of desperation that will more than likely end up being a big waste of time and tax-payer money and accomplish nothing.
Speaking of Utah, in case you were wondering ALL of Utah’s elected officials voted against the healthcare bill, including Democrat Jim Matheson. Kudos to you for being a politician who actually listens to his constituency.
So maybe having the States get involved isn’t such a bad idea. Look at what Romney did in MA. From what I see, he’s the only Republican with an actual plan on how to solve the problem. Why can’t states decide what the best solution is for them? Local politicians, though not without flaw, understand what their state needs better than a massive federal bureaucracy would.
To summarize my views – this post was indeed about the healthcare bill, but mostly about my frustration with our country’s politicians who are polarizing the people, rather than working together to come up with solutions to the problems our nation is facing.
On the other hand, the Republicans aren’t exactly doing themselves any favors. They love to say it’s a government takeover of the healthcare industry, that it will create a massive bureaucracy, bankrupt the economy, and that it will raise taxes. Despite the fact that it’s a very one-sided look at the issue, they are still valid concerns. Ever been to the DMV? Or tried to fight a traffic ticket? Now imagine how it will be to adjust your insurance claim. And $1 trillion!? Seriously? Just to get an idea of how huge that number is, I heard that 1 billion seconds is 38 years…1 trillion seconds is 38 thousand years. Wow.
But here’s my issue with Republicans – where’s your solution, then?! Rather than saying no to everything, come up with at least something in response. And what’s with the “baby-killer” outburst? You’re making the Party look like a bunch of ignorant fools only capable of pithy name calling and dramatic disagreements. After the bill passed, House Republican leader John Boehner commented that doing so has failed the American people. Well John, you’ve failed too. Just because your constituents disagree with how Obama is accomplishing it, doesn’t mean they don’t want something to be done about it.
But like I said before, I think Obama’s goals are, in essence, worthwhile. I do feel, however, that he is going about it the wrong way. But the problem is that so are Republicans. Now they’re beginning this huge campaign to repeal the bill, and several Attorneys General, including Utah’s Mark Shurtleff, are vowing to take it to the courts. For those of you who think that’s ridiculous, it’s actually not so far-fetched. For example, Virginia has a law in place saying that its people cannot be forced to buy insurance. Still, it’s an act of desperation that will more than likely end up being a big waste of time and tax-payer money and accomplish nothing.
Speaking of Utah, in case you were wondering ALL of Utah’s elected officials voted against the healthcare bill, including Democrat Jim Matheson. Kudos to you for being a politician who actually listens to his constituency.
So maybe having the States get involved isn’t such a bad idea. Look at what Romney did in MA. From what I see, he’s the only Republican with an actual plan on how to solve the problem. Why can’t states decide what the best solution is for them? Local politicians, though not without flaw, understand what their state needs better than a massive federal bureaucracy would.
To summarize my views – this post was indeed about the healthcare bill, but mostly about my frustration with our country’s politicians who are polarizing the people, rather than working together to come up with solutions to the problems our nation is facing.
This is a great look at both sides of the issue. I'm probably under-informed about all of this, especially since I work in healthcare.
ReplyDeleteHowever, no matter what happens my personal views (more and more conservative with every day I spend on this earth) I will continue to give the best care possible to my patients, no matter who is paying for their stay in the hospital.
As far as your bipartisanship concerns go, one of President Obama's greatest goals was to bridge the aisle and to some degree he has tried. The senate version of the healthcare reform bill, which was passed prior to the house version, was written by a bipartisan committee of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Although Republicans in the house did not vote for the bill it can not accurately be said Republicans have had nothing to do with its creation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072803173.html
They may not be voting for it because of their deeply-routed differences in ideology but they were involved in the process. As you have expressed, the anti-liberal propaganda without a comprehensive counterproposal is ultimately frustrating and useless.
Further, the Obama administration has implemented policy that has reached out to the Republicans/conservatives. Any Keynsian/liberal economic ideologue realized a much safer version of the wall street bailouts would have been the creation of a temporary national bank that could absorb all the sub-prime loans but the administration went with a much more economically "conservative" plan which mirrored the bailout the Bush administration enacted before leaving office. This was an attempt to work across the aisle, compromising on ideological differences which were necessary for the good of the american people.
The last thing I want to address is states passing laws in anticipation of healthcare reform. For example, last week our Utah legislature embarrassed us in front of the nation by proposing a law that any national healthcare reform would have to be approved by the state before any implementation could take place within UT. Similar States Right's themed laws have actually been passed in WY and South Dakota nullifying any anticipated federal implementation of gun control laws on guns manufactured within the respective state's borders. It's getting late so I will be brief; but the short story is this debate was solved in the 19th century by a disagreement over federal law versus state's rights called The Civil War! Briefly, in cases where federal law and state laws conflict: federal law trumps state as per the 9th and 14th (if i remember correctly) amendments in the Constitution. If UT had passed the healthcare reform authorization law it would have been swiftly cut done by the courts as soon as someone was denied healthcare benefits from the reform bill that they would have normally received if not for the state law. Pretty much, the same debate from the Civil War. The gun laws are more interesting legally because they only stipulate guns manufactured within the state's borders eliminating the federal governments power to regulate through the Intrastate-Commerce clause of the constitution and so I'm not exactly sure how it would play out in the courts. It will be interesting to see. But I would argue UT saying no to national healthcare reform is just about legally impossible without MAJOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution and/or secession from the Union.
Alright Bruh, I've had enough ranting for tonight. I see I'm the first to post and I will probably not participate too much in the future once this site gets going, but I hope this helps your discussion board! (Note: I'm actually refreshed to see my peers taking steps like this site, but I get very frustrated by close-minded people who just resort to calling Obama a socialist/marxist and absolutely refuse to consider any other possible alternatives!)
--Peaches
JJ,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I've made it a point not to take part in most conversations on healthcare reform, I stumbled onto the blog and thought I could add some perspective. I'm actually deeply concerned about the average American's understanding of politics, ideology, history, and the economy in general. For example, my middle-aged coworkers listen to conservative talk radio daily. Today I had the "pleasure" of listening to a woman call in and quite publicly embarrass herself by proclaiming House Republicans weren't even allowed to vote on the healthcare reform; rather, Obama just "voted yes for all of them." I was amused until I remembered this radio show was being broadcast nationwide and listened to by hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans. I'm becoming increasingly concerned and frustrated that these people are actually voting on decisions that directly affect my life. Further, living in a diehard Red state I've noticed when I have attempted to engage people in actual discussions (such as what you are attempting here) and rebuke such egregiously false notions about what is going on in D.C. I usually get hit with some sort of remark about how I've managed to be completely "brainwashed by my liberal university professors." Once again, it is totally out of my control whether people want to read about economics, history or ideology but our progress as a nation is ultimately being delayed by political gridlock caused by the uniformed people like the lady who called into the radio show who have a vote just as you or I do.
With all that being said, in your post you raised some concerns I believe I can provide some helpful insight.. The biggest is the cost of the Healthcare reform bill. Yes conservatives are really enjoying the Congressional Budget Office's estimated $940 billion dollar total price tag as a propaganda tool. (See any Sean Hannity conversation in the last few weeks..) The CBO is a completely bipartisan committee, uninfluenced by either party, and the projected costs should rightly be accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike. You are correct. $1 trillion dollars is a LARGE amount of money. However, in the same report the CBO also said the reform would reduce the federal deficit over the next 10 years by $130 billion and by $1.2 trillion over the second ten years. The program will pay for itself and then some; and in reality, we are investing now for deficit reduction savings that are unprecedented in american history. The CBO's report IS NOT influenced by Obama or the democrats in any way and is a very reliable estimate of the positive financial impact of reform.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/cbo_health-care_reform_bill_cu.html
Without getting too snobby, I would also point to the amount of spending going into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a much bigger concern for the american taxpayer. Iraq (illegal and unnecessary depending on your political party preference) costs the United States approximately $80 billion per month since march, 2003. The benefit to americans from healthcare reform is much more tangible and attainable then any goal from these wars, particularly Iraq. The only real benefit americans have gotten in Iraq is the 14 permanent military bases which have come at a $80 billion dollar-a-month price tag and the lives of thousands of american soldiers. Certainly, any realist realizes these bases will be quite useful 50 years from now when the United States and China are competing/fighting on a global level for limited natural resources like crude oil but this argument is only theoretical in nature and certainly not one the Bush administration would ever admit to as a goal/achievement of the war in Iraq.
thanks for the comments...all good, well-informed points!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete