Politico.com reports that the initial draft of President Obama's Wednesday night speech to a joint session of Congress has been reviewed by key aides and "is now in the president's hands." This is a crucial speech for Obama because his health care reform plan has been slowed in Congress -- by some members of his own party.
Most people across the political spectrum have indicated that they want improvements in the health care system, but are not ready to sign off on a massive overhaul of what amounts to one-sixth of our nation's economy. It is time for members of both parties to find common ground on this issue.
It appears that the White House is scaling back its proposal and would "only include a public insurance option as a fallback plan," reports Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper.
We'll see if Obama can sway members of his own party to go along because Democrats have the votes to pass a plan without Republican votes. It gets a bit tricky in the Senate where the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy prevents Democrats from having the 60-vote "supermajority" needed to stop Republican blocking maneuvers.
I'd like to see a compromise plan that slows the skyrocketing cost of medical care, allows people with "pre-existing conditions" to get health insurance at a fair price and allows portability of group health plans to prevent the so-called "job lock." We need reasonable tort reform and insurance companies should be able to compete throughout the nation, and not be locked into only competing within states. We must find a way to cover all citizens because all of us end up paying for the uninsured through our taxes and in increased insurance premiums.
Let's get this done so it makes the system better. We can do it if we put away the political knives and commit to one objective: improving the health care system for all Americans.
No, let's don't. I don't want ANY part of a 1,036 page bill that was slapped together, that virtually no one in Washington DC has read (let alone polititions who are charged with voting for the thing) and is a purely ideological treatise and mandate (said ideology bearing no resemblance to capitalism and/or free market economics) which will impose health care quotas and, eventually, eliminate private health insurance providers. You see, I have read it.
Any politition who votes for a bill which he or (if necessary) his staff has not fully digested, much less read at all, should be removed from office on charges of ethics violation, malfesance and abuse of office and the public trust.
Someone write a completely new bill which is not based upon failed European socialized health care
principles and mandates and MAYBE the people will consider it (if we ever trust any politition again, much less another left wing Democrat ideolog).
I believe you are working off of old information mikebp. The original bill that was slapped together finally did get read because "Washington DC" refused to vote on it. The resulting frenzy forced politicians to read it. The bill has also gone through many revisions since it originally came out and since the town hall meetings.
That said, I also agree that any politician who votes for or against a bill that he/she has not read and digested should be punished for abuse of office and public trust.
Whether the current bill is worth it's salt; I don't know. I'd prefer the taking of smaller steps toward a final goal instead of one big sweeping change because I don't think the ramifications of some facets of change have been or even can be predicted without having been put into practice and then being fine tuned. I believe a gradual, stepped change is more likely to be sustainable and controllable. A sweeping change, if not fully thought out and fine tuned can result in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." As a Democrat, I don't think I am alone in questioning whether this bill has had the level of fine tuning that is needed to reform health care into something better. We risk replacing old problems with new ones which ultimately may reform nothing.
"Failed European socialized healthcare?" Better longevity than in the United States, lower infant mortality, superior preventive medicine than in the US. And the physician standing at the bedside of the critically ill does not have to ask if the patient can afford the required treatment or if the insurance will pay for it. The physician is free to practice the art of medicine as he was trained to do. It has been estimated that 45 million Americans are uninsured and about 25 million are underinsured. To name just one State, New Mexico has an uninsured rate of 25%, and the poverty rate is still rising. mikebp might be one of the lucky well heeled or maybe has taxpayer or consumer supported good health care. But it seems that our nation of about 300 millions is willing to write off about 50 million fellow citizens as collateral damage. It is safe to assume that those approx. 50 million with no insurance or underinsured would be happy to be covered by "failed European socialized healthcare" as in France, Germany, Norway , Switzerland et. al.. And don't be tempted to excuse it with capitalism. Capitalism does not elicit human sacrifice. That we are willing to deprive millions of our fellow citizens is selfishness and unchristian. It stinks to high heaven. Any good doctor will tell you that. Physicians want to heal. It's their calling, their profession.
This must not be construed as an endorsement for the president's health plan. But something has to give. Talk talk talk is not solving the problem. Vilifying the president is not going to help the cancer patients in Nevada who have been dropped from treatment because they cannot pay for it. A good doctor is treating them now, financing it with his own money.
Health care or not, I’m partisan to a president that can lower my taxes and fix what the housing market “greed” created… Just get the job market back up and avoid more scams…including “communism”