Got to dissent from this analysis a bit, really: true, Obama came to back the healthcare reform bill and, by the end, had truly staked his presidency on it. However, consider that the bill was not initiated by the White House, but instead by Harry Reid. Hopefully Obama will now realise that on big bills like this, he has no choice but to lead from the front.

FDR grasped that astonishingly quickly, and acted decisively both in his first hundred days and for years afterwards, which is one of the things that meant he went on to become America’s greatest president since Lincoln.

It’s a start. I’m delighted that there’s now a real prospect for 30 million Americans to have (reasonably) secure insurance cover for personal and family healthcare costs but that will still leave some 15 million without cover and the crucial issue of the grotesquely high cost of healthcare in the American medical market place still needs to be addressed:

“Why does it cost the US about $7,000 per person annually for our incomplete national healthcare system, while other major economic competitors provide universal coverage for about half that? The answer is quite simple: the federal government pays whatever the cost will be.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4049dac4-8d05-11de-a540-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Bob B is right, it is a start, an amazing step in a country like the US, let us see where it leads us next.

I read 60% of all bankruptcies in the USA arise because of problems settling medical bills (a matter involving some 900,000 citizens)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

I don’t remember Daniel Hannan mentioning this fact when he was delivering his televised master class on the pros/cons of different health systems – I wonder why not?

Yeah, guess it’s alright s’pose but considering what their defence budget is, that this will just tax the pips out of most people and doesn’t kick until 2014 – then err….trebles all round!

In healthcare reform, the devil is in the detail. For an ‘independent’, dispassionate assessment of the detail in the legislation passed by the US House of Representatives – which still needs Senate approval – try Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a5m.aHHy4ZFY#

“The revamp will cost $940 billion over 10 years . . ”

Nearly a trillion dollars looks worryingly high – which perhaps explains why no Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for the bill. But compare this report of a few years back about spending on the military:

“The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn’t account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes. . . Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

News that the US military couldn’t account for more than a trillion dollars caused barely a ripple.

News that the US military couldn’t account for more than a trillion dollars caused barely a ripple.

Perhaps because they can account for it, they’d just rather not tell anyone where it’s gone.

I wonder what happened with the missing 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.

Try this with Bill Kristol on about the great government-run healthcare for the US military which the American public don’t deserve:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa69puS7J0Q

I’m an American and wanted to see what the rest of the world thinks about this bill. What’s not being discussed is that this legislation isn’t for the good of the people, in fact, polls showed more people against the bill than for it.

Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that she was honored to be among those who brought us Medicaid and Social Security- Social Security is literally broke. The govt has been “borrowing” against it for years. The entire taxpaying population has been paying a significant portion from each paycheck to a program that promised us we would see the money when we retired. It is gone. Medicaid is also broke and has always been a disaster.

This first black president is also the first to have abused his power so greatly. The freedoms provided for in our constitution have been discarded and fascism is growing in our country at a rapidfire pace.

Also of note is that we will be forced to buy into this program, facing fines and possible jailtime if we refuse. Forced immunizations will be the norm, and we will not be allowed to work if we’re not vaccinated.

This is not about helping the American people, it is about control. Consider that we have been fed the same crap about the US being the best country in the world for so long, when logic tells us that’s not true, besides being laughably arrogant. I mean, we have been fed propaganda from birth and many know nothing about life outside the US. Anyway, scary times ahead for America, as this bill defies our constitution and more than half of our states are readying lawsuits and contraindicating legislation. It’s gonna be a mess.

9
You have a representative democracy and the votes for the ‘yaes’ were more than the ‘nos’, so the bill was passed – that’s how it works.

eirwen:

your prejudice and misinterpretation of healthcare reform is in plain view, most of us here see the reform for what it is, much needed change for a healthcare system leaving millions behind and leaving America looking like a third world country.

>Social Security is literally broke
No, it isn’t, in fact the program is sustainable for decades yet even if nothing changed – and after that, it’ll be sustainable at, er, slightly lower payouts.

>Medicaid is also broke and has always been a disaster.
No, it isn’t. The only disaster about Medicaid is that it isn’t universal.

>The freedoms provided for in our constitution have been discarded and fascism is growing in our country at a rapidfire pace.
No, they aren’t. Which freedoms have exactly been discarded? Where’s the fascism?

>Also of note is that we will be forced to buy into this program, facing fines and possible jailtime if we refuse.
That’s one of the worst parts of the bill, I’ll concede.

>Forced immunizations will be the norm, and we will not be allowed to work if we’re not vaccinated.
This is not a bad thing.

You’re right in one thing, America isn’t the best country in the world. Could it be the billions wasted on war and conflict? Could this be perhaps because the current libertarian economic system isn’t working? Could it be because you have a healthcare system that accounts for more bankruptcies than anything else in the country and produces one of the least healthy populations in the western world? No, I’m sure that can’t be it.

I wonder what happened with the missing 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.

Some of these lovely people may or may not have answers for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rashid_Dostum

@13: “Some of these lovely people may or may not have answers for you.”

You mean something a bit like the Iran-contra affaire, during the Reagan presidency, but with more private enterprise engagement to unofficially dispose of surplus military kit while everyone else blinks?

“The Iran–Contra affair was a political scandal in the United States which came to light in November 1986, during the Reagan administration, in which senior US figures agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo, to secure the release of hostages and to fund Nicaraguan contras.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

It’s curious how much can be spent on military things in America, or how much government borrowing is permissible to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, but when it comes to spending on better healthcare for millions of Americans, that’s outrageous and unconstitutional.

“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Pretty much, I very much doubt they’ve genuinely ‘lost’ anything, certainly not to that extent.

FWIW CNN have found that 52% either back the bill or don’t think it’s liberal enough – http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf

“Pretty much, I very much doubt they’ve genuinely ‘lost’ anything, certainly not to that extent.”

How about the missing $8.8 billion dolars reportedly airlifted to Baghdad airport on pallets of $100 bills?

“WASHINGTON – At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.

“The audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority’s own inspector general blasts the CPA for “not providing adequate stewardship” of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that was given to Iraqi ministries.

“The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by David Hackworth, a journalist and retired colonel. A U.S. official confirmed that the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth were accurate. . .

“One of the main benefactors of the Iraq funds was the Texas-based firm Halliburton, which was paid more than $1 billion out of those funds to bring in fuel for Iraqi civilians.

“The monitoring board said despite repeated requests it had not been given access to U.S. audits of contracts held by Halliburton, which was once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, and other firms that used the development funds.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5763483/

Compared with that, I suppose this is relatively minor stuff:

“WASHINGTON – The Pentagon has lost track of 30% of the weapons transferred to Iraq from the United States, according to a government report newly published in the country.

“The Washington Post reported Monday morning that about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi forces in 2004 and 2005 were not accounted for, according to the report released by the Government Accountability Office.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3434115,00.html

Yep. You’ve got to get this disgrace of helping poor people get healthcare into proportion. $1 tn over ten years, with associated gains from better health, vs a Pentagon budget of $708 bn this year, including an estimated $56bn black budget (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/pentagons-black-budget-tops-56-billion/)

I’m certainly not a racist, and I read the 2400 pages of the bill – I DO think we need healthcare reform, but not in the form this bill takes. For instance, the cost small businesses will incur will force many out of business. And what happens to the millions of Americans who cannot afford insurance now, let alone when it is mandatory to buy?

As far as having a representative democracy, yes, we do. Our representatives should reflect the will of the people, and they didn’t.

As for forced vaccinations, all I can say is that apparently blind trust in conventional medicine isn’t limited to the US. Know that the components in vaccines often contain tissue from aborted children, dead animals (this is what the virus is grown on), mercury and aluminum. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

Just because I don’t agree with a policy doesn’t mean I’m racist, throwing accusations around doesn’t get anyone anywhere. Disagreeing also doesn’t make me wrong. I just want what’s best for my family; isn’t that what everyone wants? An objective look at the processes and actions of an administration is a good thing.

eirwen:

You speak of objective when that is the last thing you are, here are some facts for you with regards to what the new bill will mean (hope this helps you get it a little more straight in your head)…

This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone.

This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents’ insurance policy up until their 26th birthday.

This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need.

This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool.
In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years.

This year, we’ll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country’s needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners — on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections:

This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer.

This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees.

Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies.

Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don’t meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.

Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.

Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses:

This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.

This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same.

This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64.

This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the ‘donut hole.’

@eirwen

As for forced vaccinations, all I can say is that apparently blind trust in conventional medicine isn’t limited to the US. Know that the components in vaccines often contain tissue from aborted children, dead animals (this is what the virus is grown on), mercury and aluminum.

I’m not aware of anything in the healthcare reforms that places additional requirements on people to get vaccinated.

As regards your concerns about vaccinations, may I suggest a trip to http://www.badscience.net

Try this reproduction of James Gillray’s (famous) cartoon of 1802 showing the “Wonderful Effects of the New Innoculation”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_cow_pock.jpg

The good news is that Smallpox has been eradicated by vaccination.

“Smallpox is believed to have emerged in human populations about 10,000 BC. The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans per year during the closing years of the 18th century (including five monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness. Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

This Reuters report covering the details of the US healthcare reform legislation is the most lucid account that I’ve found so far:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

Wondering why has that guy at number 19 just cut-and-pasted a Democrat political speech by Nancy-Ann Min DeParle as some sort of response to objectivity? And why is he referring to ‘us’ in preceding comments when he is not American? And why is he then claiming to be a spokesman for most of the UK?

Daniel @ 19

For a nano second I thought you had some original thought.

Then I realised somebody had taught you to copy and paste.

That is not engagement. It’s just…..well…..copying and pasting.

With hugely controversial topics like national healthcare systems, there’s perhaps a case for cut ‘n’ paste with specific attributions or links to help readers follow the supporting evidence, detail and arguments. I certainly appreciate and learn from links to reputable sources and such links can do much to prevent sustained attempts to mislead readers who don’t have the time to seek out reliable sources.

Links like this are especially helpful IMO:

“Politifact.com, a fact-checking Web site owned by the St. Petersburg Times, has selected its No. 1 political falsehood of the year: Sarah Palin’s assertion that the Democratic health care bill would create ‘death panels’ — government bodies with authority to decide whether individual citizens should receive medical treatment. The site said that 61 percent of its readers also voted Palin’s ‘death panel’ remark as the No. 1 political lie of the year.”
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/21/sarah-palins-death-panels-wins-polifact-lie-of-the-year/

Michigan Dave:

When debating right-wing idiots I find fact is best, this is fact, from the horses mouth of the political party instigating the change in the healthcare system, this is what will occur due to the bill passing, not the smears and lies perpetuated by those on the right. In answer to your questions:

I’m not pretending to be American, you have mis-read the use of us and I ask you to quote me where I say I am a spokesman for the UK. You won’t and can’t so that’s your bad.

Finally, I find it amusing that when it comes to actually arguing the points ‘Michigan Dave’ you have not one single rebuttal to any of the facts presented here, by me and others, not a single one. All you got is personal attacks. Speaking of which…

pagar:

I’ll be straight with you, I’m getting pretty fucked off with your pointless personal digs at me, I’ve no idea what I’ve done to you personally but whatever it is, if you feel that strongly, email me and keep it off here, otherwise you’re just as bad as all the other fools that come here to attack me hiding behind anonymous titles and proxy servers.

Hope that’s clear?

As for your dig, funny how like the fool above you got no actual rebuttals to the points I present, we have an in-denial healthcare reform loathing troll who I presented some facts to, not opinion, plenty of that round here by people who carry no weight, such as your awful closing comment in the multiculturalism thread, hot air, so I gave some facts of what will actually occur, as have plenty others here.

Argue the facts or get lost.

Oh and pagar, I’m biting my tongue about your awful closing comment in the multiculturalism thread, trying to keep personal beef off here, hope you can do the same.

Interesting to see progressives supporting the bill. a bill that guarantees millions of new customers for the insurance companies, that guarantees the profits of the once much maligned pharmaceutical companies and that has a massive 20% plus implicit marginal tax rate on the poor (up to $90,000) alone.

I’m taking these numbers from the CBO:

A family of four in 2016 earning $42,000 will have their healthcare subsidised to the tune of 82% meaning that their insurance costs will be $2,600. If their income jumps to $54,000, the subsidy decreases to 67% and their insurance costs will be $4,800, an increase of $2,200. This is an effective tax only the poor and middle classes will pay – hardly the progressive dream.

The bill insures an extra 30 million Americans, but leaves 24 million uninsured and it achieves this by forcing them by law to buy insurance or have the taxman penalise them with 2% of their salary.

Now there’s a surprise! Old CC stopping by to give his negative take on healthcare reform, you don’t say you’re not a fan? I’d never have guessed!

I read your take on matters with a pinch of salt, you have no ownership of the facts on this one, you also seem oblivious to what Obama wanted and what he was compromised into by an utterly intransigent and immovable GOP in the pockets of the pharmaceuticals.

I think many on the right will bitch and moan about the very compromises that had to be included in order to sate the right.

How edifying.

I’ve not been on the site long but im surprised. Can anyone on here offer an opinion without being personally attacked and labelled.

I assumed LC was set up to discuss and share thoughts on liberal issues. Instead it seems to be used as a platform for people to show off and show how “Liberal” they are.

The only discussion encouraged is absolute agreement with the post, any deviation from this leads to name calling and insults and at best a patronising summary of why the person disagreeing is an idiot for having an opinion.

This site is infested with horrible, immature facists.

And I dont know what a facist is anymore the word is so misused here.

Anything to add to the post ‘Dave’ aside from personal attacks?

Daniel

Well I knew I could reel you in.

Judging by the fact that you didn’t address the points but chose to go off on one, then you’re alright with those aspects of the bill.

My facts are based on the CBO, the numbers taken directly from one of their reports. It’s not me who has ownership of the facts, just the highly respected non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

But take the CBO with a pinch of salt if you like but it does make me wonder what qualifies for facts in your world.

CC – some of your criticisms are fair. This is certainly not an ideal bill for “progressives”, never mind for democratic socialists. But you’re selectively quoting the CBO, who point out that costs will likely go down over the long term, and that the cost to the taxpayer will go down in the long term. The two important things the bill does are driving costs down and insuring everyone so no-one should be without health care.

Reel me in? Sounds like trolling with that kind of phrase, you never struck me as a troll baiting before, although we fundamentally disagree on this issue but if that’s all you are doing then that is pretty pointless is it not?

Address your points?

Trouble is your points have a large disconnect with fact, you ignore CBO projections for this costing the tax payer less in the long term and also the CBO projections for it being a tool to reduce the deficit by a large margin. You are picking out elements you agree with but not the elements that show it to be a good thing.

You are also centring your assessment on only one facet of the healthcare bill but ignoring the many redeeming features and while we are on the idea of not addressing points, you utterly duck the ones I made in 29.

This is the trouble CC, us discussing is pointless, nothing either of us will say will move the other from their current political position.

To be honest, I want to wait until the healthcare scheme is fully up and running before passing judgement.

I’d urge you to do the same.

Oh poo, Tim F beat me to it already. Well said that man!

Yes, personally I think this bill is a good thing overall. But is also quite contoversial in America. I dont think someone wanting to see what the rest of the world thinks about the bill and admitting they are worried about their family deserves to be partronised and treated liek an idiot.

Incidentally Daniel, Dave is my name. Quote marks are unnecesary, what exactly are you trying to imply by that?

Dave:

We have plenty of Dave’s round here, some of which trade in smears and personal attacks and with it being the Internet and all, there is no point going: ‘Dave is my name’ as you can’t prove it.

As for Eirwen, have not read her comment at 9?

She is clearly no there to ‘see what the rest of the world thinks about this bill’ because all she has been offered here is that we like it and evidence to back that up, which she has not addressed.

More likely is that she is here to smear the bill with the same ignorant and fictional fears that are running rife through the US.

Then she drops this bombshell: “This first black president is also the first to have abused his power so greatly.”

Major disconnect there and if you squint you could see that as pretty racist.

Never mind the other untruths she trots out rebutted well here by Bob B and others.

So ‘Dave’ rather than worrying about her, worry about what lies she has been fed to trot out that kind of nonsense.

“And I dont know what a facist is anymore the word is so misused here.”

Or misspelled. Anyway, if you don’t know what one is, how come you’re happy to accuse people of being one?

You don’t really know what the word “fascist” means, do you?

You think it means “thuggery by a political faction”.

No, that’s thuggery. It’s a tactic, not a political philosophy. Like terrorism is a tactic, not something your can fight a “war” against.

Fascism is a system of government characterized by racial xenophobia, extreme nationalism, and a fetishism of military culture and authority, all supported by a collusion of dictatorial government and corporate political power, in a non-free market form of capitalism driven by the military-industrial complex.

Tim f/Daniel

“who point out that costs will likely go down over the long term, and that the cost to the taxpayer will go down in the long term.”

Yes, if you ignore the Doc Fix which Pelosi and Reid did in their submission to the CBO and if you really think that the Cadillac plan excise tax will really be enforced in 2018. Then in those instances, it will bring down the deficit. But the Doc Fix can’t be ignored and the excise tax on cadillac plans won’t be inforced (particularly if the Dems control congress in 2018. The Unions won’t allow it).

And the other thing you forget is that proposed healthcare plans NEVER come even close to their projected budget. Medicare turned out to be 10x more costly than was originally projected, Romneycare 30% more and that’s only been 3 years, the NHS twice as expensive as originall projected.

Sorry I don’t buy the good for the deficit spin.

Please don’t take this as intended to patronise, it’s not meant that way but you do understand how the CBO work right? They only give projections on the data they are provided with (ie by Pelosi). They can’t consider things beyond what Pelosi submits. Just not sure if you are aware of that.

As for cutting healthcare costs – not according to Jane Hamsher

“# In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.

# Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)

# Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)”

If oyu are interested in a criticism from the left, Jane Hamsher’s myths of healthcare reform is an interesting read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html

#9 eirwen
I take it you’re not short of a bob or two then.

I’d just like to add on the deficit:

The CBO number on deficit reduction in the first ten years was a joke (not the CBO’s fault, they can only report on what they are given).

the years 1-10 projection of saving $138 billion blatantly ignores the $240 billion of the doc fix and can’t be seen as accurate when it counts 10 years of revenue but only six years of spending. The actual 10 year figure of Obamacare spending is $1.5 trillion, over half a trillion more than the figure the CBO worked with. In truth, in the first ten years, Obamacare adds over half a trillion to the deficit. And just to put a 10 year saving of $138 billion into perspective, that’s significantly less than the additional deficit added in February this year alone.

The Dems celebrated a year 10-20 saving of $1.2 trillion supposedly according to the CBO. The difficulty is, that number never appeared anywhere in the CBO report.

Your comment at 39 shows the issue I raised in 34, you are against healthcare reform of this nature FULL-STOP. You are a Conservative, you hold deep-set personal prejudice and alternate political values on this issue (as is your right of course, no doubt), thus, when you are confronted with the facts about the other impacts of this healthcare reform all you can offer is that prejudice by saying and I am paraphrasing here: “I don’t believe it”.

That is fine but you believe the negative, you are willing to take those elements and attack but not the positive, which goes far beyond deficit reduction and improved long term efficiency and reduced costs but covers the entire raft of improved healthcare measures that are in this (compromised) bill.

That is why it is pointless debating you on this issue and I hope that you can see that clearly, you do not approve of this policy thus you err on the side of negative, I do approve of it thus I err on the side on the positive.

Only time will truly tell.

And to repeat CC, although it is clear it is a waste of time, the CBO (who you are so keen to cherry pick, cherry picking that reflects your prejudice on this issue, or should I say this strand of the issue) on the 18th March made it very clear that:

“health insurance reform legislation reaffirms…that fiscally responsible health insurance reform is not only possible, but also is an important step toward long-term fiscal sustainability.”

You are intransigent in that you are willing to use the CBO to attack the plan but not to celebrate it, you cannot have it both ways.

Daniel @ 26

It is honestly nothing personal.

But there are some important conventions that you should adhere to and it is not acceptable to cut and paste a thousand words that somebody else has said or written into your own blog comment without attribution.

If you do that, there is a danger people might mistakenly think it is your own thought and argument and then waste their time responding to it.

Daniel

Of course you are right – I am disposed to dislike the bill as I do. You are right to point out that I am identifying specifics that suipport my case that it is a bad bill, but they aren’t insignificant specifics. There are other things I don’t like, like the mandate, like the tax increases and the added bureaucracy. But I recognise that those things are conservative prejudice and that others don’t see those elements as necessarily bad. That is why I focused on things that aren’t mere philosophical differences but actual measurables and on those elements of the bill that actually punish the less well off. If you are prepared to make those compromises to get as progressive a bill as you can then that’s fine but that doesn’t take away from the fact that this is a long way from being a perfect progressive bill.

But here is something I think we can agree on. Conservative suggestions for healthcare reform are a bit late in coming as they had the Presidency for eight years and the House and Senate for much of that time. They gave Obama the opportunity to push this reform through because they weren’t interested the previous eight years.

Daniel

I’d like to know where you got that quote from. I have the CBO prelim report in front of me and that sentence does not appear in it.

I’m not saying you are wrong, we just might be talking about different documents.

pagar:

It is honestly nothing personal.

Sorry but I don’t believe you, not at the moment anyway and not on your previous form of coming to various threads just to have a dig at me…I mean who could forget the classic when you attacked me for poor spelling and in doing so, had made a spelling error?

Ouch.

I also am not sure where you got offered the arbiter role round these parts?

You attack me but do not engage with the thread at all, that is personal and as I said, keep it off here. Hope I made myself clear?

CC:

Your disposition towards the bill, or perhaps more accurately, towards the politics behind the bill, is your clear and welcome right but I am not keen on taking elements from a source that backs your take but ignoring or dismissing as inaccurate the bits that do not.

And returning to eirwen and people of her ilk, a Texan blogging comrade of mine put this up at his blog a yesterday, it speaks volumes to me…

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn’t get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.
You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Daniel

OK I’ve found that quote of yours. It doesn’t come from the CBO but from Peter Orszag, the Director of the OMB which is a very partisan organisation in that it works for the President.

Partizan you say?

And you’re not?

Dear me, I find it odd how selective you need to be in order to maintain the mythology.

As I said, time will tell about the successes and failures of this piece of legislation but it was much, much needed and no doubt the US could do with even more but for now, this will most certainly do.

To quote Joe Biden: “This is a big fucking deal.”

@38 – Your right I dont fully understand what a fascist is, and I think it can mean so many different things today that its meaning is a little obscure. But thanks for giving me your definition, and your right I shouldn’t have alled anyone on here that.

fas·cist [fash-ist]
-noun
1.
a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2.
(often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3.
a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

fas·cism? ?[fash-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.
(initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

@ 51 Attribution please.

Danny boy at number 26

What an angry little critter you are!

Any heck, a political speech, especially one from such a vested interest, is as far removed from objectivity as can be and if you don’t know that then you have a lot to learn.

In what context do you mean ‘us’ then if not in the national sense and as for your quotes, here it is: In reply to “I’m an American and wanted to see what the rest of the world thinks about this bill” you answered ““most of us here see the reform for what it is.”

So you do think your some sort of UK spokesman based upon Lord only knows what. So guess what? I could and I have so that’s your bad.

“Michigan Dave”

Angry me duck? Not really but you must be physic youth if you can read me mind all the way from Michigan…

It’s funny you mention vested interest because in a political sense, if you’re looking for a pure source (not that you have nay sources, you don’t, you’re just here to well…troll, for want of a better word) there isn’t one but, I’d rather, for now, take the word of the government actually getting the legislation through. For now, tinfoil hats can wait for a bit.

The ‘us’ you make reference to and have mis-read is in relation to the vast majority of commentators and readers who come here, the clue is in the title to this here website.

And I see you can provide no evidence of me saying I was a spokesman for the UK? Oops! Your bad huh? You made a lie, oh dear sweets! Either that or you’re one dumb sons-bitch yeah?

Hope that’s cleared that up for you and I eagerly await your on-topic contributions to this here thread lover, rather than attacking me…

Daniel,

Love the bit from your Texan chum @47 but I think you should have a cup of tea and a biscuit so you can catch your breath.

How come this healthcare reform will cause so much damage to the US when the Pentagon budget apparently doesn’t? (Well, apparently, meaning nobody seems to have complained as much about over $700bn this year and increasing annually, including over $50bn black budget).

Is it because most people think Pentagon money is spent on bombing brown-skinned people overseas? I’d take a look at what’s going on at DARPA. There’s a lot of worrying stuff being developed as “non-lethal” and surveillance technology that could so easily be turned on domestic protesters or political activists.

Yurrzem!

I hate tea but love a good digestive, you feel me?

We are on the same page, in that, it is odd what get’s certain elements of society upset and what they’re willing swallow.

“Danny” boy at number 55

Oh Lordy, having read all of your comments here I think you need to worry more about the state of your mental health then about the health care system of some country that doesn’t concern you.

“Your mum”? Really is that what you are reduced to as a response to someone?

Any heck, you have no understanding of objectivity let alone projection and opinion over fact and reality and cut-and-paste what is by definition a biased politcal speech and even appear to present it as your own thoughts!

Are you saying in reference to ‘us’ that the Democrat party is internationalist in nature? Think carefully about that one before answering buddy. And I gave the quotes to show that you think you can answer for “most of us here” that is the UK and either your mental health issues are blinding you to this or its your apparent lack of intelligence, if you want to be insulting.

Your childish and simplistic its all ‘left’ and ‘right’ certainly points to someone who reacts in knee-jerk partisan fashion on every issue rather then on salient study and reason.

Define ‘left’ and define ‘right’ if you believe that these are the central forces at play.

I see your cut-and-paste and I raise you one here with this opinion by an American doctor on the moral case against the reform:

“The greatest expansion of American government and the social welfare state since the Great Society passed the House Sunday night. Opponents recognize that this bill violates the most important principles of American government, and as such, is immoral.

In a free society, does one individual’s needs constitute another individual’s obligation to provide? The answer is no; rather, it is the duty of free individuals to decide what and whose needs appear most important to them. In a free society, the individual is of supreme importance and should not to be used as a means to society’s ends. The individual has the right to order his actions and possessions in the manner most consistent with pursuing his own happiness and values. This view is consistent with America’s founding principles. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The above rights are known as “Natural Rights,” and they protect the individual’s right to freedom, autonomy, and self-government — in other words, to take all the actions required to support the furtherance, fulfillment, and enjoyment of one’s own life. They provide no material assurances or particular opportunities to the individual, but rather set conditions that allow the individual to decide what use he shall make of the circumstances in which he finds himself — to act in his own best interest so long as his actions don’t infringe on the equally protected rights of others.

Based on this logic, government programs that involuntarily transfer or redistribute wealth are immoral because they violate the individual’s natural right to order his own actions and possessions. Theft is immoral. Likewise, theft via the government is immoral.

Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson highlight the differences between collectivism and individualism. The philosophy of collectivism regards the individual as a means to society’s ends and is thus immoral, whereas individualism respects the freedom and autonomy of each member of society.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” – Karl Marx, 1875

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1801

Another important question is: What constitutes a need, and who should decide? Should it be the patient in concert with his or her physician? This seems like the obvious choice. However, if society is paying the cost of whatever service is required to satisfy “the need,” then the provision of that service must be regulated to prevent overutilization and runaway costs. In other words, it must be rationed. In a free market, prices perform this rationing function. In the absence of a free market, some third party must ration based on a formula other than price.

Rationing by price is moral because this unbiased mechanism allows individuals to maintain complete freedom and autonomy. A patient who cannot afford a service that he deems a “need” is still free if he can pursue any course of action in order to meet that “need.” Likewise, a provider who feels that his patient “needs” a service is free if he can pursue any course of action in order to provide that service.

Some members of society today confuse the concept of true freedom or liberty with the concept of how many options are available to an individual, and this encourages them to advocate for collectivist schemes to help those who may be less fortunate.

“[Liberty] describes the absence of a particular obstacle — coercion by other men … the range of physical possibilities from which a person can choose at a given moment has no direct relevance to freedom. The rock climber on a difficult pitch who sees only one way out to save his life is unquestionably free … if [he] were to fall into a crevasse and were unable to get out of it, he could only figuratively be called ‘unfree,’ and that to speak of him as being “deprived of liberty” or of being ‘held captive’ is to use these terms in a sense different from that in which they apply to social relations.” – F.A. Hayek

Unfortunately, the only alternative to rationing through price is rationing through the government, and this is immoral because the decision of what constitutes a “need” is made by a third party with no personal connection to the individual or his circumstances. Ultimately, these decisions are made by those with the most political influence — a situation that inevitably breeds corruption. These governing bodies do not respect the primacy of the individual, but rather view the individual as a means to society’s ends. Bureaucrats don’t make decisions about health care according to an individual’s “need” or preference, but rather, they ration resources based on a social-driven calculus. As evidence of this, the health care bill under consideration has a Medicare board of unelected officials to determine the program’s treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_moral_case_against_health.html

@58 Michigan Dave

My question about the Pentagon budget still stands. You say, “government programs that involuntarily transfer or redistribute wealth are immoral ..” Isn’t that what a budget this big is doing? Its much more than necessary just to defend yourselves.

From my perspective US society has become very divided between rich and poor. Poor healthcare perpetuates the poverty endemic in some areas. This has wider negative consequences such as increased crime. Therefore I think its better for society as a whole to contribute fairly towards each other’s health needs.

I think you also need to ask whether the status quo ante was actually as good as you think. American healthcare is notoriously expensive but with results not much better than countries that have nationalised healthcare of the sort you seem unhappy with.

“Michigan Dave”

Oh lordy lordy!

My mental health is fine thanks for asking, as is Daniel my real name, not Danny though and you seem to be suggesting that I don’t have the right to care about the healthcare system of another country? Wow, that’s a pretty narrow and ridiculous parameter you’re setting up there, I wonder why…

some country that doesn’t concern you.

NEWSFLASH TO “MICHIGAN DAVE”, AMERICA IS THE WORLD”S MOST POWERFUL NATION, WHATEVER IT DOES CONCERNS THE WORLD!

And not another idiot going on what I say to others but not the issue at hand? If you knew the rapport me and pagar have then the use of “Your mum” makes as much sense as calling someone a critter.

Too many folks lined up to play arbiter here.

Any heck, all you’re doing is attacking me personally by saying a whole heap of nothing, making value judgments about me rather than what I say. You are ducking the points I put to you regarding non-bias political sources and have offered nothing back.

You are consistently missing my meaning of the word ‘us’ which was with regards to readership here and you also have not withdrawn your lie with regards to me making out I was a spokesman for the UK.

Your childish and simplistic its all ‘left’ and ‘right’ certainly points to someone who reacts in knee-jerk partisan fashion on every issue rather then on salient study and reason.”

I haven’t said that you idiot, if you keep making up what I say I’m afraid this will run its course pretty quick.

And then you drop a huge quote from a conservative web source that has had a hand in smear campaigns, like I said to CC, swapping of such quotes is pointless and if you’re comparing American Thinker to the US government as a source, you’re a long way off track.

I could fill this comment thread with quotes by doctors and medical staff who love the new healthcare reforms (Physicians for a National Health Program or Heal health Care Now…the list goes on) or who want even more reform but that would be pretty pointless, no?

Bye now!

I’m with Daniel Hoffmann-Gill 100% here.

I was thinking of an adjective to use to describe the US conservatives’ ideological approach to any type of health care reform, even the most watered down.

In the end I think depressing is what does it.

I find it depressing because we are talking about helping the most vulnerable section of society. People who can go bankrupt or at the very least enter a devastating tunnel of insecurity purely because luck was not on their side and they got cancer or any other serious illness.

I don’t think it’s a matter fo money because when you want to find 100 QUAZILLIONs for weird/hopeless/badly thought out wars, you don’t mind.

I don’t think it’s a matter of state interference either. Because you actively want the state to stick its nose alright when it comes to telling people how to (not) behave in bed, or as regards to procreation.

Is it selfishness? Is a case of “I’m-alright-Jack-keep-your-hands-off-my-stack”? What is it? What is it with you people that you can’t see that this may happen to you too one day, that your luck may enter reverse gear unexpectedly and you may be in the same need to?

@61:

Among Republicans, there’s evidently a complete unwillingness to recognise just how bad the unreconstructed healthcare system in America was. Try this press report from back in 2000 about the WHO report on national healthcare:

“The first attempt to rank the world’s health systems by how well they meet the needs of their populations has put the UK in a disappointing 18th place, behind France, Italy and other European nations. . . The US spends more than any other country on health as a proportion of its gross domestic product but ranks only 37th, below Chile, Morocco and Israel.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/unresponsive-nhs-ranked-18th-in-world-712332.html

62
It was actually one of your fellow citizens at post 9 who invited comments about the US healthcare bill, and being generally a polite lot on LC, we kindly obliged.
Putting aside the general thrust of this argument, I am always surprised when political and social theories, belonging to centuries ago, are rolled-out and applied to modern post-industrial societies. In 1801 the city did not exist or massive exchanges of people and goods over large areas. Public health wasn’t the issue it is now and mass productions was nowhere to be seen. Health was provided by folk remedies and education was passed from one generation to the next. Even Hayek utilized the term ‘serf’ in a way that wasn’t representative of what serfs actually had been.
Today the concept of ‘the individual’ gets lost in the many social rolls that modern society provides, by all means defend your opinion about the healthcare bill but save us from the ancient prose.

Hot news update:

“Senate Republicans have made good on their threats to try and gum up the works in order to prevent final passage of healthcare reform legislation, including a ‘no Viagra for perverts’ amendment designed to put Democrats on the spot.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/24/healthcare-reform-republicans

Just how childish can it get?

That’s pretty shitty.

Re: Bob B at 63, it’ll get worse, from death panels to not funding abortions and the full gamut of moral issues that get confused with good healthcare practice.

I’ve debated many a wing-nut and they’ve trotted out the Viagra for perverts stuff.

*heavy sigh*

Daniel and others – if Michigan Dave leaves any more comments, ignore them, they will be deleted in due course as and when we feel like it.

What a shower of shit you all are.

I get it, I came off as racist, you’re right. I didn’t mean to, but the first sentence in the article made it sound like it’s surprising that a black man and a woman achieved anything of significance in American politics. I just think concentrating on race is silliness, and when I said “This first black president is also the first to have abused his power so greatly,” I didn’t mean it the way it came off. Because anyone is capable of screwing up, or succeeding, ragardless of race or gender.

My biggest problem with the healthcare bill is that it is unconstitutional. Our gov’t is now forcing citizens to buy a product, which is explicitly forbidden in the constitution. If politicians can enact a law that is directly contradictory to the highest law in the land, what is next? This bill breaks the law and should be totally unenforceable.

Again, I know that healthcare needs reform. Don’t think me uncaring, or cold for not wanting to help fund other people’s healthcare. I regularly give to charities, and donate much of my time to worthy causes.

For those saying I clearly don’t understand the bill, you’re absolutely wrong. The bill is 2400 pages, have you read it? I did. There is a wonderful article written by a physician who lists some of the problems with this bill.
http://biggovernment.com/egeorge/2010/03/23/depend-on-the-government-for-your-health-care-good-luck/

I also want to clarify a little bit, and say that I don’t consider myself a “conservative.” There are a few people saying that people like me are fine with gov’t sticking its nose in other areas, but are now opposed to it when it comes to helping disadvantaged citizens. I’m pretty firmly a libertarian, and would love it if the gov’t would stay the hell out of everyone’s business. People should be responsible for themselves and their actions, and charity shouldn’t be forced. We should work on our society and not our laws to achieve a truly compassionate nation.

Please also understand that in the US, we have a real problem with illegal aliens claiming welfare, unmarried women having tons of kids and surviving on welfare (I don’t care if you’re unmarried, just make sure you can take care of your kids if you’re going to have unprotected sex), and irresponsible people (i.e. heavy smokers and people who are living unhealthy lives), surviving on the public dime.

Genuinely sick people, who can’t help it, deserve help and compassion. But people who come here illegally, take our jobs and commit crimes against us, shouldn’t be helped. And Obama is going for amnesty next so you know we’ll be paying for them.

As for the wars, I totally and conpletely disagree with us being a “military presence” in other countries. We should get out, let them govern themselves, offer help if they want it during emergencies, and focus on our significant problems at home. The money we’re spending while interfering with other countries could be much better spent.

If I can find the article again, I’ll post where one of the officials is quoted as saying that this health care bill is primarily going to help failing insurance companies, because now we’ll be forced into buying, instead of going without. Obama bailed out a lots of companies, to mixed reactions publicly. She was saying that this is just a veiled way of keeping big business from collapsing. Anyway I think it’s worth noting that many of the provisions won’t go into effect until after the next presidential election, well into Obama’s term if he’s voted in again.

By the way, I thought comments were supposed to be about constructive debate? There’s lots of insult flinging and accusations in this forum.

Let’s recap:

- By published American estimates, 46 million Americans, under current arrangements, have no insurance cover for personal and family healthcare costs

- The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills

- Average life expectancy at birth is lower in America than in Britain, where it is lower than in most other west European countries

- In the OECD Factbook for 2009, the infant mortality rate in America is exceeded only by Russia, Mexico, Turkey, China, and Brazil among the countries shown in this OECD chart:
http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=3137588/cl=14/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/11/01/02/index.htm

- It costs the US about $7,000 per person annually for an incomplete national healthcare system, while other major peer-group countries provide universal coverage for about half that cost

If I were an American, I would regard those basic facts as deeply shameful for one of the most affluent countries on earth. But Republicans don’t. Which says it all.

Btw “Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

HEY PSYCHO USA REPUBLICANTS! What the hell are you doing on a website from a communist country like the UK? The country you freaks of nature have your party base believing KILLS their pple.

We in the US are forced to hear the daily threats and hate born of ignorance from home schooled deviants.. They are then set free to corrode the college crowd insisting on evolution and rep doctrine as in Texas. Please join me in a campaign for the world condemnation of rightwing hate creation. Call your rep ,put it on bumpers. They tried to kill one of our reps yest. along w the destruction of 8 Dem office bldgs. SO neoCONS leave the countries you denigrate alone!

I wonder what the consequences will be for the insurance companies? They are already lobbying strongly over here to try to get a toehold in our health system.

Bob B

“If I were an American, I would regard those basic facts as deeply shameful for one of the most affluent countries on earth. But Republicans don’t. Which says it all.”

The problem is, you are playing fast and loose with the truth.

46 million uninsured. Yes, but of those 46 million, some are illegal immigrants, some are between jobs, some are young people who can afford to buy insurance but choose not too and some don’t have insurance because they are eligable for other types of health provision like Medicaid. One study I saw put the numbers of people who genuinely can’t afford insurance and need it at 8 million.

Bankruptcies – Maybe, but the number of bankruptcies has halved in the time frame of that Harvard report I assume you were referencing. In other words, the problem was getting better before reform was passed.

Life expectancy – Is not fully correlated with the quality of medical services, other social factors decide life expectancy. This oft quoted stat is a complete red herring. America has the best cancer survival rates in the world. For breast cancer, the US ranks number one – 92% of patients survive through five years, in socialised medicine Britain, that number is 78%. A similar story for bowel cancer.

One thing I don’t quite get. It’s not as if the health reform landed on earth out of the blue.
If my memory is correct, Barack Obama was elected with a sound majority only 14 months ago and health reform was amongst his very top priorities.
He’d said it loud and clear and he got a clear popular mandate on that.

Isn’t that called ‘democracy’? So what’s the problem?

Claude

“Isn’t that called ‘democracy’? So what’s the problem?”

Because electoral mandates aren’t all that clear cut. There were many other reasons why Obama was elected – the economic collapse, Bush and Iraq. I doubt 53% of Americans went to the ballot box thinking “cool, now we get healthcare reform”.

If President Palin and Speaker Bachmann in 2013 get electoral mandates for seeking a constitutional convention to criminalise abortion, invading Iran and eliminating social security, would you be quite so passive about “democracy”?

The Democrats electoral mandates give them the right to set the agenda, but democracies require the necessity for an opposition and their duty is to “oppose”.

Conservative Cabbie:
“and their duty is to “oppose”.”

Sure it is. Absolutely.
But it’s not their duty to spread lies about death panels and similar bullshit, and less so to call it “undemocratic”.

If I remember correctly Sarah Palin originated that death panel thing, and people ran with it. We should definitely find the facts out for ourselves. But I do wonder what will happen in the case that it becomes too costly to provide service to someone? I haven’t heard or read anything about that.

The reform bill crashed and burned last year, it didn’t get much play in the media. Plus not one of the representatives who voted for it are being honest in their televised interviews. Rep Anthony Weiner (D- NY) just BSed his way through being asked about 5 times “Who will enforce a defiance to buy into the healthcare policy?” He said there’d be no criminal recourse, but that we’d face fines and possibly legal action. Didn’t think that response made sense.

I’m curious to see how all this will pan out. As for the Tea Partiers spitting and yelling racial slurs, no one has been able to produce proof despite the many sources of video from that day. If they did do those things, it’d be counter-productive to their cause.

75 cc
Shouldn’t you be campaigning against your electoral system if that’s where the fault lies?
If you participated in that system you accepted it for what it was, therefore, you should accept the outcome. Shouting ‘fire’ when things don’t go your way is hypocritical.