for
against
Exactly. After all the trouble it took to get to this point the last thing the democrats want to do is basically admit that they pushed through a bad bill by going back and attempting to "fix the bad stuff". Instead they'll just talk up this bill as being just fine and look to move on to something else. The bill we've got now is the one we're going to have to live with.
i do not know if i necessarily agree with this. if history is an ongoing discourse between thesis and anthisesis (which i believe it is), then progess is incremental, with the resulting product of a dialectic recognizing its own contradictions and then creating a new dialogue.
this is a major loss for single payer (which is what i was for) for several years, but it may just be a linear step in what will be a long process towards true reform within our current dysfunctional democracy.
The problem I see with regards to whether or not a public option will become a reality in the future is two-fold. In the short term, the neccessary congressional political will for a PO is not there now and things don't get any easier for the pro-PO crowd after the mid-term elections in 2010 and congressional redistricting in 2012. In the longer term, the unfunded liabilities in medicare are going to catch up with us and I just don't see there being support for a public option at the same time we're being forced to raise taxes and cut benefits in order to keep medicare afloat.
At least that's my $0.02.
The Hegelian emphasis was unexpected, but maybe it's unreasonable to expect a through-and-through Hegelian not to brag about it eventually.
sure, there are many reasons to feel the public option will never come to fruition. another is the fact that our parties are both slaves to the corporate interests vested in health care the most.
perhaps i should have been less opaque in my remarks. i do not expect any changes to this current reform in the near future. all it did was take one step up from where it was before. but it is still in the abyss.
my perspective was not so much philosophically based as it was an observation on how history can occassionally work. hegel was not the first or last thinker to suggest such an historical process. he simply added aspects of the divine and determinism to his version.
i was not being metaphysical at all. but perhaps there was something to the way i posited it that would lead one to make the inference you have.
i don't really get the sardonic hue however.
Last edited by rjv; 03-24-2010 at 02:12 PM.
A 2000+ page bill makes me nervous..Theres probably so much hidden in there that will cost so much more then what ppl think. I dont like the fact that ppl think its great to have a government that is getting bigger by the day..Who the wants the IRS on your ass & the gov telling you what you can & cannot do??? Our economy & jobs should have been the number one focus. Expect slow growth for the next five years the way things are being handled.
I definitely don't want the bill IF it uses tax money to fund abortions. I am still not clear as to whether that occurs with the current bill. Can someone clear that up for me?
Easy hoss, you use it plenty yourself. Mornin cup of coffee to me.
Top o' the mornin to ya, rjv.
didn't mean i did not get why you were being sarcastic. i meant i did not get the actual sarcasm.Easy hoss, you use it plenty yourself. Mornin cup of coffee to me.
Top o' the mornin to ya, rjv.
I meant it in all jocundity, and I thought it was a little bit funny. Perhaps I miscalculated.
Preexisting law forbids federal funds ever being used to fund or pay for abortions. That does not change in this law.
There was some flap about it because some folks said that the fact some private insurance policies may cover abortion procedures, combined with the fact that some folks may get federal help in paying for insurance premiums if their income is below a certain level, led to concern that it was a 'back door' approach to federally funding abortions. That is why some democrats (e.g. Stupak, etc.)were not going to support the bill, unless Obama promised to reaffirm the ban on federal funds being used in any way.
That is why Obama came out with that Executive Order today, reaffirming that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions, period. That was the confirmation that Stupak et.al. wanted to get them to support the Senate version of the bill.
In a twisted way, I'm glad this bill passed.I am for anything that pisses off whott, wc, jackiesommerset, spursncowboys, yonivore..
In a few years, it will prove you all to be lib s.
I'll bet if those movies had a political history, this style of bill would be in it.
So...
In a time that many businesses are going out of business, you like the fact that the government is making their costs of insuring their employees higher, promoting more layoffs and more business bankruptcies?
I would be curious to know if any insurance covers elective abortive procedures. I do not know of any.
I did find this:
5 states restrict insurance coverage of abortion in private insurance plans; 4 limit coverage to cases when the woman’s life is endangered; 1 limits coverage to life endangerment, rape and incest.http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente.../spib_RICA.pdf12 states restrict abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees.
I don't know of any, either, Ploto. I have never considered it, frankly, as anything that insurance might cover.
Does anyone know of any private insurance that covers abortion procedures?
I mean, it obviously would be theoretically possible, but I can't imagine why an insurance company would offer it. Who would make them?
Its a typical half-baked, half-thought, half-done, half-ass compromised bill shoved through against popular will.
Proponents of universal healthcare admit this bill doesnt go nearly far enough, nor does it address key variables (cost of care, not insurance).
Opponents see it as the end of everything. The first step, as it were.
I am against the bill only because I think the government mandating that all Americans have to purchase a good or service (oh, except for the poor souls who cant afford it, of course) from a private corporation is patently uncons utional. Make it a redistributive tax, or an indirect tax on some goods or services so as to allay any Cons utional concerns.
Nah, it. the whole do ent wholesale, really. The Cons ution only means something to people when its convenient. If youre going to force health coverage upon all Americans, could you at least adhere to the Cons ution while doing so, please?
No, lets just make up as we go along. Congress and Obama, IMO, made a deal with the insurance corporations. Basically, your time is short, but we're going to throw you a really big bone and give you a couple years until everyone figures out this is complete bull and would rather have an universal system.
Compromise, compromise, compromise. Life is not about compromise in everything. Do it right or dont do it all.
Thanks very much for the info.
... he says before getting into an accident that requires numerous recontructive surgeries to some appendege to achieve some semblance of functionality.
That or some nasty bug that doesn't give a how healthy you are, but literally eats a hole in you, if you are one of the seven in ten to survive the infection.
Health insurance isn't about intending to use it or not.
It is about having it because health outcomes cannot be known.
First off, the youtube video in your sig is epic.
Secondly, in a few years,
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
