Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party's leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a "threat to the country." The issue, he said, "really relates to ... whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance."Whatever. It didn't bother Mitch when the GOP had the same majority, did it? Then it was righteous and patriotic, wasn't it? Now, I'm just hopeful that Al Franken gets past the latest legal challenge mounted by the party that once urged Democrats (in 2000) to back away fro recounts and lawsuits for the good of the country.
Hypocrites. Meanwhile, thanks to JR for this link: More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops, by Laurie Goodstein (New York Times).
Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.
Isn't it quite amazing that when Democrats switch parties, they've "seen the light" and are patriotic. When a Republican switches, it's a national emergency and a crisis. Remember the frenzy that "Give 'em Hell" Zell Miller whipped up at the GOP convention with his speech about how the Democrats had 'left him'. He was a freaking hero to them. Now, they vilify a guy who uses many of the same reasons that Zell did for his switch. Hypocrisy abounds...
ReplyDeleteOf course a mention of Miller cannot go by without remembering his challenging Chris Matthews to a duel after his convention speech.
Maybe Mitch ought to be worried about Bunnings' chances at reelection, or worried about the fact that only 21% of Americans now say they are Republicans according to new polling, or maybe he should be worried that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of his party, or maybe he should be worried about (fill in the blank, cause there are lots of things for the GOP to be concerned about right now)...
Miller was always a conservative leaning democrat and Specter has always been a liberal leaning republican. There is no crisis. That will happen when the national health care is pushed through just before the next round of "flu" breaks out.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Bunning is toast. He should retire and so should Specter.
Right. Because it's so much better to have 46 million people without health care in this country than to have "socialized" (OH NO!) medicine.
ReplyDeleteDaniel:
ReplyDeleteWhile I toast your toast remark, the test of toast is in the taste.
Until the U.S. joins the rest of the world in treating healthcare as a right of citizenship, rather than simply a commodity to purchase in capitalism's bazaar, we will taste toast that tests our boasts of greatness.
I too was once against socialized health care, but once you realize how much we pay in overpriced medical service and what we would save without flipping premiums, it's hard not to be in favor. Not to mention the countless deaths each year that could be stopped by pretreatment. Our medical field, like so much else, has been tainted by capitalism. I wonder how many docs would stay in the field if they couldn't charge 200 bucks for two asprin?
ReplyDeleteI also have to say Mr. Gonder's ability to get the doc from Bloomington(yes a doctor in favor of public health care)to speak in NA a couple of months ago was quite enlightening.
There definitely needs to be reforms in healthcare, but letting the government handle it is not the answer. Remember, this is an entity that pays over $200 for toilet seats.
ReplyDeleteI read a story of a doctor in NY that let his patients pay a monthly fee, something like $79, and they could see him all they wanted. The government shut him down because he was acting like and insurer instead of a doctor.
We need to put the brakes on the health insurance lobby.
One good way to put the brakes on the health insurance lobby is to make their part of the financial equation an option rather than a necessity. That's pretty much what President Obama has proposed thus far.
ReplyDeleteAnd, just for giggles, I'd point out that another semi-regular commenter here who happens to be a doctor consistently complains that the government doesn't pay him enough.
They also don't pay on time, which creates a cash flow problem. Many offices have started to refuse to see Medicare patients for this very reason.
ReplyDeleteYeah, forget the medicare patients. BMW's require gas, and you can't take a chance that the gov't money won't come through in time for that. I would sacrifice my six figure salary to ensure an elderly lady wasn't in pain either. Are the begger's prisons full?
ReplyDeletemeant wouldn't, not would.
ReplyDeleteI just figure if other countries can figure out how to provide health care for all, surely the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known can do it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I would imagine that the US is also the most heavily medicated nation in the world as well...
The thing is that other nations haven't figured out how to do it well. The waiting time for a delivery room in Canada is ten months...lol. Look, no one is going to spend ten years in school and incur $100K in student loans to have the government tell them they can make $40k a year. We will have a shortage of doctors and nurses, there will be waiting lists for routine surgeries and the government will start telling you what you can and cannot eat.
ReplyDeleteI am not for keeping this system as it stands now, but I in no way endorse a system fully controlled by the government.
Not every nation has problems, Daniel. My wife grew up in national health care in Austria and never waited to see a doctor. Apparently, they figured it out. Our friends in Germany, France, Czech Republic and Switzerland all say they have no waits. I know this because I usually take a bit of a verbal beating at the hands of these friends about US politics and society in general. Not as much anymore, of course...
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, my wife has had to wait longer for a specialist here in the US then she ever did in Austria. It can work and my contention is that the US, being so wealthy and powerful should be able to find a way to make it work. Mr. Gonder was correct, health care should be a right of all citizens.
Not sure I agree with that last statement. What else is every citizen entitled to? A car? We already tried to qualify every citizen for a house and now look at the mess we are in. From what I read, every citizen has the rights laid out in the constitution and Declaration of Independence. I have not found the right to health care in there. In general, it seems like a nice goal. Everyone has health care, there is world peace and we all live happily ever after. It does not work that way in reality.
ReplyDeleteOne step in the right direction is to cap malpractice payouts. The price of insurance for doctors in itself is enough drive up costs for everyone. I also like the idea of an a la carte menu. Do you have a cold? $20. Sprain an ankle playing soccer? $40. Let these doctors compete, then the costs will come down.
Wow. I've never heard anyone equate owning a car with the health of a human being. That's a really low value to place on the life of your fellow man.
ReplyDeleteI have more compassion for people than that, I guess. And I'm glad I do.
As far as doctors competing, that somewhat contradicts your earlier statement about doctors not wanting to work for $40,000 per year. If they're competing for business, Wal-Mart might get into the act and set up doctors offices that drive down the profits for all the other doctors. What then? They might end up making less than $40,000 and we end up with less doctors and a medical crunch. Maybe you think that doctors losing income due to market forces is better than losing income to national health care?
I see health care as a right, plain and simple. As a person of faith who believes in one who healed and ministered amongst the least of God's people, I cannot bring myself to embrace that health care is not a right. To me the debate is 'how' as opposed to wondering if we should provide it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that the "market" is starting to work on this. Walgreens has started clinics inside some of its stores that are staffed with Nurse Practitioners. I don't believe they charge an office visit and no appointment is necessary. However, there are some limitations to the services they can provide. Even Toyota has added more doctors and even pharmacies right on their assembly premises to lower the costs of insurance. There are many great ideas out there withour a cumbersome government taking control.
ReplyDeleteMr. Manzo, you are so quick to to say that healthcare is a right, but the right to life is what I want to hear about from you. Let's make abortion illegal. If that happens, I would gladly give more of my taxes to pay for the healthcare of those children. As it stands now, our government pays for abortions in this country and across the globe. What a disgusting practice.
"What else is every citizen entitled to? A car? We already tried to qualify every citizen for a house and now look at the mess we are in. From what I read, every citizen has the rights laid out in the constitution and Declaration of Independence."
ReplyDeleteDaniel Short:
Since you mention the Declaration of Independence, ( a document which is a clear challenge of the then status quo), does it not posit "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the justification of our revolution?
Absent good health, how valuable is liberty and how much happiness might one pursue?
To equate possession of material goods, such as a car, to the access to the cornerstone of "life, liberty..." is not a valid construct.
Acceptance of the worth of all humans within our society has evolved since the constitution was written, as the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage attests. Those in favor of extending health coverage to all Americans see it as simply continued vitality and relevance of the founding documents and the rights expressed therein.
I see it as devolution. On one side, women have the right to vote like they should have always been allowed. On the flip side, women have the right to kill another human that resides within them, many times on tax payer's dime, and that is also seen as progress?
ReplyDeleteWe have the right to "life." Our founders made that the first part of that catchy little phrase. It used to be that in America, one could be whatever they wanted to be. They could actually pursue happiness. If health insurance makes you happy, then pursue it.
Side note...you don't actually have to have insurance to be seen at a hospital. Just ask any illegal alien.
Daniel, the 'market' has little to bear with health care. I fundamentally disagree with that. And if you really believe it's starting to work, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that might interest you.
ReplyDeleteEvery time you are back into a corner you decree your opposition to abortion, like it is the foundational issue of all issues and that being opposed to abortion makes a person 'pro life.' I'm happy to discuss the morality of life as long as we can really discuss being pro-life and discuss our national obsession with weapons, with capital punishment, and now torture. If a person is pro-weapon, pro-torture, and pro-capital punishment, I will not waste my time discussing life issues.
And Mr. Manzo, every time you wish the topic away by turning the pro-life conversation into one about big bad guns, war and the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteIf you think socialized health care is so great, ask a veteran how well they are taken care of. I have, and the conditions at the VA are not good. They are under-staffed and the equipment is from the previous decade. Welcome to your future.
p.s. I have never known a "minister" to be so openly pro-choice. Will you be the first in Indiana to marry a gay couple if the measure should ever pass in this state? Just wondering...
So if I see this right, Daniel...if doctors are forced to cut their profits because of the market, possibly causing less people to enter the medical profession because of it, that's fine and dandy.
ReplyDeleteBut if it's because of national health care, that's a crisis.
Interesting...
Why is that so interesting? Prices drop in the market all the time. Don't you shop around for big purchases? The market can push prices down, the government will cause the price to rise.
ReplyDelete"Look, no one is going to spend ten years in school and incur $100K in student loans to have the government tell them they can make $40k a year."
ReplyDeleteThat was your argument against national health care was that doctors wouldn't be able to make as much money. If the market pushes profits down to the same amounts, wouldn't you have the same concerns? Doctors won't make as much money, they've got those big loans to repay, right?
You seem to think that if doctors make less money due to market forces, that's okay. But if it's because of national health care, that's bad.
In a sense, yes. Markets correct themselves. If doctors could charge what their services were worth, didn't have to pay through the nose for malpractice insurance and didn't have to wade through the government restrictions, they could make just as much as they do now while still keeping rates low.
ReplyDeleteThe only way caps on malpractice awards help lower premiums is if insurance companies voluntarily lower them in response to lessened risk. Historically, they haven't done that.
ReplyDeleteSeveral states have had caps for years and premiums aren't comparatively lower there than they are in states that don't have them.
Even if they were, you'd still be depending on doctors to pass the savings on to patients. They won't necessarily do that, either.
The only thing caps accomplish is to further enrich the same folks who already wield tremendous wealth and power. Access and quality are not improved.
I can see it now. We'll have ads in the coupon section for doctors. You're making doctors sound like DVD players to be browsed at Best Buy. The doctor-patient relationship is little more intensive than just looking for the bargain basement price to have your wart removed.
ReplyDeleteD. Short "....you are so quick to to say that healthcare is a right, but the right to life is what I want to hear about from you. Let's make abortion illegal. If that happens, I would gladly give more of my taxes to pay for the healthcare of those children."
ReplyDeletecan we talk about the children already suffering daily without health insurance!! Mr. Short - please come to my neigborhood and we'll walk around and I'll introduce you to lots of needy children who are desperate for healthcare. You don't need to wait for the "what if" children to be Pro-Life.
G. Coyle, have you traveled outside your neighborhood? Maybe to another country? I understand there are children in America with real needs. But, the fact is that the poorest American is extremely wealthy compared to world standards.
ReplyDeleteLiberals make my stomach turn when they use poor American children as an argument for abortion. Are you saying it would have been better for a child in New Albany to have been aborted rather than live without health insurance? That is a very slippery slope.
D.Short "Are you saying it would have been better for a child in New Albany to have been aborted rather than live without health insurance? That is a very slippery slope."
ReplyDeleteJust hoping to discuss "what is" as opposed to "what if".
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteFirst, G. Coyle did not make an argument FOR abortion. The fact that you said she did does not mean she did so.
She is essentially pointing out that being 'pro-life' is being more than just opposed to abortion.
Secondly, it is very presumptuous of you to determine my ethical position on abortion. I see it as a grave medical/ethical issue and NOT as a legal or political issue. This does not make me pro-abortion.
Thirdly, you have little right to clamor about any pro-life issues as you are not pro-life. You may be opposed to abortion, but that would seem to be about it.
Fourthly, you mention my thoughts on war. I was not aware that you know my thoughts about war.
Lastly, the little "minister" thing. This is really offensive. I mean, really. Whether you agree with my politics or theology or not has little bearing on my ability to be a pastor to people or to minister to people, most especially when they are profoundly hurting. Frankly, ministry often takes place to hurting people while the minister himself or herself is hurting as well. I cannot tell you how many times I have presided at funerals of people I profoundly loved and cared for. Ministry takes place from a person's heart and not from theological or political opinions. If it was your intent to offend me to my core, you were greatly successful.
I congratulate you on that.
Atta boy, Daniel. Hit 'er again with the "L" word.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly not my attention to offend or hurt anyone. I say I am pro-life, you say I am not. I say everyone being given the chance for life from the start is pro-life. You say that if someone agrees with the death penalty or does not agree with your approach to helping others they are not pro-life.
ReplyDeleteMy minister comment was not a stab at your profession. I am sure you minister to and help many people. I am simply stating that the convictions I hold do not allow me to agree with the concept of abortion. I am all for ministering to those that have gone through it, as well as talking to those that are facing it.
Maybe I do not know or understand your position on abortion. As a pastor, could you tell me how you feel about the subject so that I may understand?
I'm late to this(y'll quit clapping)but Daniel Short asked what else citizens are entitled to. Basically, I take it, meaning that health care is not a right.
ReplyDeleteEven the "right" does not seem to have a problem with the right to education. It's even a socialistic type of program. Now, the "right" may not like exactly how this is all implemented but the basic right and obligation to education is really not questioned. I fail to see how it is any leap at all to universal healthcare.
Hoosier, surely you do not want health care run by the same people that educate our children. We are so far behind in every category. Did you know that in D.C., $14k is spent on every student every year in public school? They are some of the worst performing schools in the nation. In that same city, you can buy your child a private education at one of the top schools for less than $10k per year.
ReplyDeleteSo, is that what you want for the future of socialized medicine?
I wasn't aware there was a proposal for District of Columbia officials to run a national health care plan.
ReplyDeleteJeff, just showing what happens when an overgrown beurocratic machine gets in the way. Federal, state or local, it is ineffective and inefficient.
ReplyDeleteI do not profess to know the answer to the health care debate. There are some things I do know, however.
ReplyDeleteWhile we have some of the finest doctors, hospitals, technology, etc., in the world, we are not providing the best health care in the world.
Our infant mortality rate is higher than many countries in the world.
Our life expectancy is not among the highest in the world.
For a nation with our wealth this demonstrates that we are doing something wrong. Again, I'm not suggesting that I know the solution; I do know that the system we have now is not getting great results.
I live by the adage that says, "The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting." Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.
The United States is a nation that has accomplished more than any other nation in the history of the world. It truly has. There has to be a solution to this problem. The richest nation in the world that cannot or will not care for the health of its people is unacceptable. Before we can do better we have to expect better...we had to demand better.
With that I most definitely agree.
ReplyDeleteI believe in peace through strength.
ReplyDeleteI believe in maximum liberty and minimum government.
I picked these from D.Short's blog of things he believes. "I believe in peace through strength(war)." is a real thought bomb.
Thought bomb? I wasn't the one that dropped that "thought" bomb. That is a quip from Reagan. I do believe in it though.
ReplyDeleteYou see, I know what I believe. I am willing to listen to others and believe it or not, I have changed my views on certain things. But, wishy washy I am not.
I also believe in the right to bear arms, which I do almost on a daily basis. I know, I am a hate filled, war monger and red neck. I have heard it all before.
So you're OK with torture?
ReplyDeleteThis thread is torture.
ReplyDelete"What do you think we come here for
ReplyDeleteOur goddamn health or something?"
Dan Bern
Daniel Short,
ReplyDeleteI never said government run healthcare. I said universal healthcare. The Federal government will have to play a roll in it at least setting it up.
My point is that I think universal healthcare is every bit as important as universal education. Doesn't mean that things can't be improved.
Daniel Short,
ReplyDeleteI have to give you credit, you really do know yourself.
Mark
The pinko, commie, liberal, pseudo intellectual. ;-)
Do I believe in torture? Are you talking about piercing the skull of a baby with scissors and sucking out its brains? I am opposed to that. If you are talking about "torturing" enemy combatants like the trained jihadists in Gitmo, I do not agree with that. But, it is probably not for the reason you think. First, it is inhumane, but I disagree with it mainly because it doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteThere are plans to release these people in the U.S. Are you ok with that?
Universal health care is government health care. How do you seperate the two? Do you think insurance companies are going to cover people out of the kindness of their hearts? A congresswoman from Illinois said today that Obama's health care plan will put the insurance companies out of business, and she said it with gusto. That's what I am talking about here.
You conservatives had 8 years to improve the healthcare situation in the USA. Our current model does not work, has not worked for years.
ReplyDeleteIf we called it health defense maybe your side would have done something. Your side sure likes to talk the role of the federal government when it comes defense. Is it really that hard to think about healthcare as part of the defense of the American people?