Monday, December 21, 2009

Healthcare revisited

This was a hot topic last time. Now with the Senate passing its bill, what are some thoughts on the current legislation? Both the House and Senate have bills. Can we call this an accomplishment for citizens?
Posted by at
Labels: ,

4 comments:

  1. Taggart RailroadsDecember 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM

    One of my major concerns from the last discussion is that healthcare perpetuates a class system in our country. It also distributes power into the hands of a few.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the single issue, of which all the others are but specific manifestations, is the distribution of power in America and our conformist subservience to those in power. A lot of money is going to insurance companies with both healthcare plans to pick up the uninsured. Also, there will be a mandate to have insurance, also helping insurance companies. Chomsky reminds us that we should be cautious of those trumpeting reform because it probably benefits them the most (quoted previously). I think this quote fits this circumstance better though, given the insurance mandate and money to insurance companies. “Few reforms [are] enacted without the tacit approval, if not the guidance, of the large corporate interests.” (1)

    I might agree with Howard Dean that we should scrap this and start over. Real reform may require a revolution, not senators and representatives. Until the people realizes this, nothing substantial will probably happen.

    Source:
    1) The Corporate Ideal, James Weinstein.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Randall StevensDecember 31, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    I do not truly understand the legilsation being put forth but some of the sharpest criticism seems to be very close to criticism given to the TARP. As in, we give these power centers, as Taggart has already stated, more power with the idea that they will give loans (or in this case, health coverage) to those in need. This plan has not worked with the financial sector.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SteveJanuary 19, 2010 at 9:12 PM

    Well hold that thought. Tonight the Republicans won the election for Ted Kennedy's open senate seat. That brings them up to 41 seats, thus enabling them to filibuster on the discussion.

    When the two governor's races recently went to Republicans, many right-wing pundits claimed the Democrats were in for a bad election in the fall. I didn't really buy that (that two governor's races by themselves would signal how national elections would go a year later). However, when a state like Massachusetts (known for its liberalism and election of democratic senators) goes to a Republican when the seat was vacated by Ted Kennedy, then I can definitely see a change in the tide of public opinion.

    It'll be interesting to see how this goes now that Republicans can block the process. Does it still go through but with limited effect? Was it already limited in what it could do? Does it go through at all? My gut feeling is it now gets blocked entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  4. SteveJanuary 21, 2010 at 1:33 PM

    Here's an interesting point I didn't think of right away on Massachusetts' vote:


    Rasmussen poll undermines conservative claims that Brown victory is a rejection of health care reform

    Rasmussen election night poll shows more Coakley than Brown voters said health care reform most important factor in determining their vote. A Rasmussen Reports election night poll in Massachusetts found that 63 percent of Coakley voters said health care was the most important issue in determining their vote, while 52 percent of Brown voters said it was their top issue. As Media Matters for America has documented, Rasmussen previously reportedly worked for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and for the Republican National Committee in 2003 and 2004.


    Unlike most of America, Mass. already has universal health care

    Romney advisor Kaufman on why many Mass. voters oppose health care reform: "They already paid for it." From a January 13 article at The Daily Caller:

    Romney adviser Ron Kaufman, a Washington lobbyist who has been working with the Brown campaign in an unofficial advisory role, said that the people of Massachusetts are "satisfied with what they got" but that they are angry about the federal bill being debated because it would force the state to pay for something they already have: nearly universal coverage.

    "They already paid for it," Kaufman said.

    Brown said much the same thing during his interview on Fox.

    "Why would we subsidize and why would we pay more for something we already have. It makes no sense," he said.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201001190068


    But then my question is, why would Massachusetts be 'angry' about the federal bill? If they're pleased with the service they have, and there's a potential doubling of the services & fees, couldn't the state health care coverage just be repealed? The only way I could see them being angry is if they're not happy with their system. Hopefully we'll discuss Massachusetts in my course so I can get a better grasp on that.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)