This is why Barry trying to hurry this bill with no debate is dangerous.Take a read and think about it. BTW this is yet another problem with the bill - you know, yet another one of those imperfect things in the bill that we're all supposed to ignore? LOL! Perhaps there may be job creation to some degree as a result of the bill, but Congress is being abusive by including things like this under cloak of darkness, and it is 100% right to debate about this garbage. Even worse, it is cynical to stoke fear amongst the people to get support when they know damn well that they are trying to hide the truth from the people about certain contents of the bill. Included is this latest hidden "stimulative" addition I've mentioned above. That $4 billion payback to ACORN (remember them? Federal investigations in 13 states for voter registration fraud?) is still in the bill as well. Characterizing this bill as "imperfect" is sort of like characterizing Liberace as "a smidgen flamboyant."
If you started spending $1 million per day when Jesus was born, today you'd still be short of $820 billion.
Anyway, to continue. One of my favorites in the article: "A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. 'If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,' he said. 'The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.'"
You know - no debate, no democracy, etc. Daschle in body is gone but the spirit remains. Well, comrades, ready for a liberal fiat in this country? We already know that Nancy Pelosi has been acting like an outright monarch, pushing a wholly partisan bill drafted up by essentially one man, Rep. Obey of Wisconsin.
Allow me to explain why the GOP didn't offer alternative ideas in the House, since people seem to be wondering.
They simply weren't allowed. One of the first things Nancy Pelosi did this year was eliminate the House rules established by Newt Gingrich (when the GOP first held the House in the mid-90's) that granted the minority party the ability to amend or push back a bill to committee for more debate, otherwise known as the "motion to recommit."
It was a tool made available to Democrats when the GOP first gained power in the House, and now San Fran Nan eliminated it, thereby removing the GOP's ability to offer amendments or extend debate on bills. The problem? The parliamentary tool allows opposition to effectively "kill" a bill if they invoke this "without instructions." This was a tool regularly used by Rahm Emmanuel and the Demos when the were the minority, but in 2006 they found a sudden distaste for it when they were in power. In 2004 Nancy Pelosi adopted a minority party "Bill of Rights" and surely if these rules were stripped at that point (again, the GOP established these minority party rights when they were in the majority) Nancy would have howled. What happened to minority party "rights" now, Nan?
This economic "stimulus" bill was supposed to be the easiest legislation on the agenda to pass, in comparison to another $1,000,000,000,000 in money to banks (wait until you hear about how gov't isn't going to monitor how the money is spent - AGAIN).
With respect to the healthcare stuff, this is the system used in England that they are now running from, since it is such an abomination. Here is an article that by arguing for rationing accidentally highlights the obvious negatives -
Actually, with respect to socialized economies (and this is a slight aside) in spots, the UK has surpassed the former Soviet Union in terms of government contribution to local economies.
Incidentally, this is exactly where we are headed if we stay on our current path.A government bureaucrat "guiding" healthcare decisions for your doctor, with possible penalties ifor the doctor if he or she is not a "meaningful user" of the system (aka, too often not doing what the bureaucrats are telling them)? Think about it.
I think Carolinian summed up my feelings on the relation of Healthcare to our economic problems. How much money would our industries save per year if they didn't have to pay for Healthcare or Retirement. The cost of labor in America is "so expensive" that people are shipping our jobs to other countries. And we blame the unions for 'demanding too much from their employer'. I think employers need to start demanding some help from the federal government. It also must be less expensive per person for the government to provide healthcare, because they would have the largest pool of customers, and therefore the most buying power. The federal gov already spends more on healthcare than every other country and we don't even cover everyone.
There is so much waste fraud and abuse in our system. And I'll never understand why an insurance provider, who has NEVER even looked at the patient will deny a procedure that the doctor recommends.
But I do agree that bills in congress need to be more targeted. There are often unrelated things crammed into legislation.
In fact I agree that the economic package should have been simpler. Why not do a series of smaller targeted bills that would win broad support. I think the democrats bit off more than they should have here. I will go way out, and even say that they are suffering from a little bit of a 'shock doctrine' syndrome, where they are using a crisis to push a personal agenda. But I also think Obama is a moderating, somewhat out of the beltway guy.
I do think the compromise bill is looking better. They removed some more junk (including some from the 'centrists' in the senate) and are focusing on the programs that target jobs.
PS, I'm going with NON-partisan from now on. To me, it means policy should be crafted based on research and study of the available evidence. bi-partisan seems more like trying to craft a hodgepodge of somewhat incompatible ideas into something elegantly mild and inoffensive.
something like that.. talk about a hodgepodge :)
The bill you mention should not be included in the stimulus package. That is not fair to force a vote on something that is not really related to the main purpose of the bill. This should be voted on separately. I am not sure whether I would be for it or against it. It seems to me that already insurance companies are denying coverage to people who otherwise might live longer if given treatment. The article makes it seem like that would be something new.
Interesting stuff about Nancy.
Here's my thoughts, take it or leave it.
- Expenses due to medical crises have been responsible for lowering people's credit ratings so they have to get ARM's to afford having a house
- Expenses due to medical crises have contributed to at least half of all foreclosure filings (at least according to this article, :::link::: it admittedly might be kinda biased).
- American goods cost more than those of foreign competitors because the cost of health insurance for the employees who manufacture said goods is passed on to the consumer. Something like $1500 of the price of a GM car is health insurance for GM employees. If a competitor of GM's builds cars in a country where the government takes care of health care, that GM competitor won't have to spend money on employee health care, and the sticker price for their car can be $1500 cheaper. Yeah, that $1500 is actually coming from that country's taxpayers, but at the end of the day their car is $1500 cheaper and price is often all people look at. Some people scream that the U.S. government shouldn't subsidize the auto industry, but countries with governments who take care of medical stuff have effectively subsidized their auto industries for years by helping out with that $1500 reduction.
Taking these factors into account and considering the mess we're in now, I think that us implementing a nationalized medicine system years ago would have actually been a bargain.
Ah, the "Zero Sum Game" when it comes to people's health care. I guess that's what they were trying to teach me in school when we were doing the "lifeboat" game. Yea, so you're 50 and you have X condition, too bad so sad the resources can be better allocated somewhere else, too bad YOU DIE!!!
Quick hit (some may call this a 'drive by') - :::link:::
More damning than anything I could say. He even goes so far as to suggest that the lack of debate on this bill is a form of tyranny.
JFC, pleeeeease do not get me started on the first $350b of the financial bailout. Or for that matter President Bush's fiscal liberalism and what his administration has done to our national debt. Granted, some of that was spent to prosecute the war on terror, but generally speaking the Bush Administration abdicated their duty to keep our national debt reasonable. I don't have time otherwise I'd write a profanity-laden manifesto on this topic that would probably shock you.
Conservatives actually agree with you on that, Ajay. Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight! I suspect that your case of BDS is waning still. :)
BTW, I don't expect this upcoming $2 trillion financial bailout (which nobody has processed in their heads quite yet and is much larger than the first one) to be much different despite the promises being made.
Despite this, I have to gently remind you that Bush did not "give his cronies $350 billion." What he did was stifle a sharp collapse and prevent a Depression-era collapse of the stock market and our banking system. It was the right thing to do but the wrong way to do it. In fact, the first $350 billion is a perfect case study on why debate on these bills (rather than rushing it through) is imperative and BHO would do himself a favor by heeding that bit of history.
Congress had their opportunity to alter the bill to include more transparency and did not. This time I think they realize that the bill wasn't a mistake, but the lack of transparency was unconscionable. There was nothing terribly partisan about that particular bill.
I'd tell you where the money went, but even our government doesn't know. Not that it is remotely possible to track every dollar of $350 billion when it is spent so fast, if at all, by our government. What is really scary is that nobody is talking about the separate $200 billion the gov't gave to Fannie and Freddie, that had nothing to do with the $700 billion financial bailout. What's up with that money? It is a quasi-government run organization so one might think that the government could find a way to track that cash.
But hey, what's a trillion, or $200 billion, or $700 billion, or even another additional $2 trillion amongst friends? We might as well have some fun while the country burns down. Mark my words - hundreds of billions of dollars in this so-called stimulus will not be temporary, and we are still paying $400 billion (and more) per year to service our current debt.
Where was (e:joshua) when Bush gave his cronies $350 Billion, no questions asked? And what happened to that money? Come on, (e:joshua) ... do some of your investigative journalism and tell us where that money went.