"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to
America. The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so
I'm inclined to think they stood
on principle.

The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance
lobby to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.

As opposed to other interests supporting the dems?

Those "other interests" aren't the ones making drugs or collecting policy
premiums Wes.
Some are even medical practitioners.

And many of them are policy wonks and politicians.



The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about
zero. They get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound
the Democrats. This is the most disgusting display of partisanship
we've seen in a while, and the no's are playing it for all it's
worth.

This is a conflict of philosophy.

Not really there isn't. What there is is the realization that a succesful
effort by Democrats in the health-care arena will strengthen their hold on
voters and adversly impact that of the Republican party. What Republicans
might have done here is to shoot themselves not in the foot, but in the
head.

If you are saying Democrats are better and bidding for votes, you might have a point.
Health care seems like a natural for that.


I seem to remember when GWB tried
to put a bit of SS into private accounts. We saw a similar response
from the Dems.

And Republican's Wes. Bush couldn't convonce the public that his ideas
included a workable formula for implimentation and the herder he tried to
sell it, the less support he got. In the end, it was a mercy killing but it
gave Democrats a powerful tool to pound Republicans with at the polls in
2006.

He just wanted to keep the politicians from spending SS money. Notice the debt is
spiraling? That slush fund, aka, SS payments, isn't producing the excess income to the
government like it used to.


If state run health care is a good thing then do it at the state
level if the states constitution permits it.

The states run the programs now Wes.

And they are having problems with it. At least it is contained to a single state where
things can be worked out. Let us not go nationwide until a workable solution exists.

I'm a pretty big states rights guy. Better to screw things up in one state than the whole
nation. Success is something we don't mind copying, failure, sane people try to stay away
from.


Massachusetts did it. Leave it up to the 50 states. Just maybe we
might come up with a good plan. I sure hope you don't think that if
the Feds are running something they automatically are doing it better
and smarter.

I see this immediately increasing costs to me and my employer

I don't know why you see that. Their Workman's Comp. premiums will nearly
dissapear.
That's a big windfall, probably between ten and seventeen percent of your
companies total payroll, and something that goes directly to the bottom
line.

Will or have? I don't have much faith in projections.


and my
mom losing medicare advantage.

Medicare Advantage isn't going away.
Apparently you don't understand what it is - private coverage. She'll still
be able to get that and she'll still have to pay for it. What will change a
lot is the level of transparency.

We will see.

Where do you get all of this prattle from Wes?

I was going to ask you.


As for bending the cost curve, the bend will be nearly immediate. 15 million
healthy 18-34 Y.O. people are going to begin purchasing health care
coverage. 3 million people that are currently uninsured will be able, within
90 days of passage, to become Medicare participants.

3 million people will find doctors in there area have opted out and 15 million people will
be asking wtf just happened.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller