Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes he did. I had no idea what the plan was until tonight and I'm glad I actually saw it. I can't believe Republicans act like a bunch of little children. How can so many people have the same thoughts and views towards a debate?
Not really. But I already had been following the plans as proposed. I'm marginally inclined toward the Baucus Senate version simply because it starts the snowball's chance in hell of removing the employer benefits model we have now.
For full disclosure for the people who don't know or study government policies in this area, the "Republican" plan that he threw under the bus at the beginning along with a single payer system is most probably Ron Wyden's (actually Democrat). And that's basically the one I'd support the most because it seems like the one most grounded in economics, value of health care outcomes, and the extremely high opportunity costs of continuing the present system even in a modified form as is being proposed. And it's probably as close as we can come to getting to a Singapore like system for financing health care spending.
During the speech, they showed a group of Republicans, and they were waving papers in their hands. Do you know what that was?
The Republicans looked like a bunch of girls.
Every thing Obama said made sense.
Supposedly it was their proposed plan. Which so far as I can tell focuses too much on the airy supposition that the problem is the lawyers that are driving up our costs (tort reform) and includes an attempt to wave the remaining stimulus money (an unrelated problem, but a common attempt in politics to attach something politically unpopular to something politically popular), leaves in place the employer benefits model we presently have, doesn't abolish medicare/medicaid/schip, etc.
Otherwise, it's sort of like Wyden-Bennett. In that it is a bill with words on it that relate to health care.
"How can so many people have the same thoughts and views towards a debate?" – do you mean the idiotic views like the Joe Wilson "Liar!" heckler or some sort of broad ideological consensus that a particular type of reform, say a market based approach or public intervention, is favored?
The second isn't that hard to arrive at even if you have the same set of facts in front of you as everyone else. All you need then is a value set which approaches the issues like costs and externality benefits, or social equity and justice and weights these in a different scale than the way your opponents do. It usually leads down predictable policy lines at that point. Of course, politicians don't ordinarily follow them consistently either.
But if you're talking about the former sort of inane babble, the only explanation I could offer is the engrained "we-they" mentality of most people. Groupthink is pretty powerful stuff in its effects on people.
Its all messed, everyone just wants to better their career some how.
Lol you are dreaming if you think everything he said make sense, remember what his title is. I agree with you about the Republicans however.
Not everything did make sense. His college education analogy was terrible, at least for explaining how there aren't any going to be any subsidies in the public option and that this is somehow a good thing. Pretty sure public college education is massively underwritten by government of any level.
Public colleges are the best.
Not generally. Some of them are really good (UCLA, U of Mich and U of Va for example). But a large percentage of them are almost worthless, in terms of impact on future earnings for an undergraduate degree, even if they are cheaper to attend.
I wish he talked more about the doctors. I know firsthand that the medical field will be changed dramatically if the plan is employed. Not all bad, but not all good. For one, there will most certainly be a shortage of physicians.
There already is in certain fields because the economics incentives are totally misaligned. Geriatric care should be growing by leaps and bounds right now because of dramatic increases in demand. It is instead one of the most under served specialties because it is one of the least paid under government compensation schemes.
I agree with your comments that there already is a shortage and incentives are misaligned. There are too many plastic surgeons, too little geriatric specialists, etc. What I meant, and probably should have explained better, is that there will not be enough doctors to treat everyone…or to treat them properly, for that matter. Doctors also do not like to walk on a tight rope when providing care. The prospect of sitting down with specialists and medical professionals to determine what insurance will cover, what it won't, how much will be paid, etc., just doesn't sit right with me.
I must state clearly that I am all for health reform. Just don't screw the very people who are schooled for most of their lives to work in a profession that basically requires perfection.
Did you even watch the speech Sal?
I can tell people your health care could, should and shall be better. Your still going to die we are just going to streamline the process a bit and make sure that nobody will be able to skip out on their bill.