Ambulance Chasers
July 28th, 2009 | Editorial Cartoons | 28 Comments
Tweet
We finally know the answer to the question, what’s the dog going to do with the car if he catches it? In the case of health care reform, bury it. Republicans who want to hand Obama a major defeat are jubilant that the blue dog Democrats are doing their work for them. I know these guys think they’re helping craft a better bill, but what they’ve done so far is disastrous. The only hope is that Obama can crack the whip hard enough to get their attention (boys, you’re not going to get a lot of help from me if you ever want a bill of your own passed, and I sure won’t be there for the photo op during your tough re-election campaign, and good luck getting any money from the party), or we’re going to miss this latest best chance at getting anything meaningful passed. If so, Obama’s agenda will be wounded, perhaps fatally, and millions of Americans will continue to suffer needlessly for lack of a rational health care system. The dirty dogs.
Topics: blue dog democrats, Congress, health care, health care reform, House, Obama, Senate
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
I don’t understand why it is such a problem for the so-called Blue Dogs to want to delay the vote. Since health care is such a vital issue, there should be a greater emphasis on getting it right, rather than speed of passage. It can be just as “meaningful” if passed later rather than sooner, and a better bill. I think the fact these dems have thier priorities right is shown by the fact they are not being swayed by any bullying or pressure from their colleagues or the White House.
This is one of my favorite arguments used in politics to kill something. Since something is “such a vital issue, there should be a greater emphasis on getting it right”. You know, we should take more time and make it a “better bill”. Didn’t we hear this same argument in 1993 and into 1994 on health care reform before that was killed?
Can anyone give a couple of examples of where that ever actually occurred? You know, ground breaking legislation like Social Security or Civil Rights?
Why is it your favorite argument, Mr. Brammer? Because it is logical and correct? It’s not a partisan-based view. Something this critical needs significant time for its creation, review, approval, and implementation. Maybe something could have passed earlier in the 90′s if prudence had been exercised, rather than haste. Sure, canned arguments could be made that socialized healthcare is already happening all over the world, and it works better, so on and so forth, but our representatives have such an impressive track record of stuffing legislation with frivolous, wasteful, and flawed “extras” that slip through the cracks (especially since no one wants to read the bills anymore) that a program that will have such a huge impact for generations must be done right – not in the mold of typical D.C. legislation. According the the current administration, this is supposed to no longer be politics as usual, no?
Still looking for your examples. Just repeating your initial comments doesn’t move the discussion forward. Adding valid but irrelevant facts like how our politicians stuff legislation with “extras” doesn’t either. Politics has changed little in the 230+ years since the country was founded and if we waited for politics to no longer be “as usual”, nothing would ever be accomplished. It is what it is.
I just caught that word “socialized”. Gotta love it comoing from a non-partisan based view. Any thoughts on other socialized programs we have like: Social Security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, SCHIP, Farm supports; just to name a few.
My intent was to discuss this in terms of why prudence and scrutiny are what is at the heart of the matter here, not historical precedent of legislative speed. I am no historian, but I believe the timeframe of Social Security’s passage was from January of 1935 (introduction) to its signing in August of that year. Deliberation was fairly extensive, lasting typically a month in each committee, even in a congress and senate that were much more partisan than they are today.
If you look at the state level in our modern times, you have had recent cases like California where budget deliberations have dragged out interminably, which resulted in the state congress being able to make much more informed votes due to the time and diligence spent on the bill. They had to do this, because their fiscal restraints are much more severe than those of our federal government.
Socialized: To place under government or group ownership or control. A spade is a spade.
P.S. BG, What are you doing for health care coverage? We know that John, who also wants more time to be taken to get it right, is on Medicare and already has his “socialized” care. What about you?
I have health insurance through my job, which I share the cost of with my employer.
If you are referring to me, I am not on Medicare. I also pay for Health Insurance through my employer and it’s fairly expensive to boot.
I apologize, John, I got you confused with another regular contributor. My mistake.
First off, kudos to Mr. Stein on this comic, it made me laugh out loud. This is one of the reasons why I followed Mr. Stein’s work in the Rocky for all those years; he does have a great talent even though I tend to disagree with him politically.
Second, I agree with BG and have said so myself before, we need to approach this issue carefully and deliberately. I would prefer a well crafted and balanced health care bill over something that is hastily put together that will make things worse.
And for God sakes, I agree with the editorial in the Denver Post today about our Lawmakers needing to read these bills before voting for them.
P.S. Go Blue Dogs!!!
Okay, I have to weigh in here. It’s not as though the Senate and House committees are just inventing this thing out of whole cloth. Decades of research by any number of health care foundations, economists and academics went into forming the basis of the current approach. Four elements are essential–an personal insurance mandate, an employer mandate, a public option, and a non-partisan cost-control system. The blue dogs don’t get this, and Republicans reflexively hate anything government, even if its the only way to accomplish the goal. The blue dogs have already done away with the employer mandate and the public option in the Baucus bill. What’s left is unworkable.
Ed,
I have to disagree with you on one point: Replublicans don’t hate anything government or even government spending. They’re just against raising taxes to pay for the spending and they’re against any government spending that the’re not deciding on where the money gets spent. They have no problem with the government spending money on wars and weapon systems, law enforcement, corporate welfare, or any pork that goes back to their home State (like a bridge to nowhere). They also reflexively hate anything that the Dems are for.
Funny, just took the words right out of my mouth when talking about Democrats.
You don’t think that Dems “hate” anything that the GOP stands for?
You don’t think the Dems have their own massive pork barrels that they waste money on?
Your don’t think that any of your apparently “Angelic like” Dems voted for the Iraq war?
If you answered no to any of these question, then you really need to get a clue (No offense intended)
Again, no offense intended, but you have the kind of attitude that is poisoning this country. You think that your side can do no wrong and that the other side is the devil himself.
While I tend to vote conservatively, there are a number of Dems that I like and do vote for. Heck if Andrew Romanoff runs for anything, I will be on board. I think he is an honorable man with a lot of good ideas and he is a solid Democrat.
I am going to guess that you have never met a Republican that you don’t hate with all the vile and disgust that you can muster.
Have you ever noticed that when someone says “No offense intended”, they really don’t mean it? In fact when anyone starts a sentence with an observation followed by “but” you can really just ignore everyting before the word “but”.
I do have to tell you why I got you confused with someone else. It’s this writing style of never actually responding to issues but simply degenerating the discussion with rhetoric in an attempt to divert the discussion from the subject at hand.
Earlier in this string, I made a point of agreeing that our politicians (both parties) stuff legislation with extras (aka pork). But if your point is that if any Dem voted for HJR 114, it makes my comment invalid, then I just have to disagree.
Lastly, I think I’ll pass on future attempts to engage in debate with you. I’m really bewildered by the casual use of words like “hate”, “vile” and “disgust” for absolutely no reason. It’s a bit too much over the top for me.
Perhaps you are right, I did go over the top and for that I do apologize.
It does really grate on me when I see someone go on an Anti-(name political party here) rant while seemingly ignoring their own parties, shall we say “indiscretions”.
Quite frankly there are slugs on both sides of the aisles that are so bad that it’s hard for me to not want to call them traitors and charged as such.
Both parties have pulled and do pull that same dirty tactics that they accuse each other of.
It’s really pitiful.
As for your declaration that you won’t engage me in anymore debate, that is certainly your choice, but I would encourage to continue debating. When people stop communicating that is when people stop understanding each other.
After all, you never know when you and I will find a topic that we agree on and I am certain that there has to be at least one.
The plain and simple fact here people is that something BIG has to be done SOON about our disasterous health care system and it is not going to be EASY or CHEAP! What is the price you (All of us) are willing to pay to save someones life that depends on getting health care that he/she currently can not afford or qualify for? Are you one of those that puts a limit on what you would pay or do to help?
Absolutley you need to have a limit. The tired old liberal canard “If it would just save one life, it would be worth it” is one of the biggest lines of crap that has ever been uttered by a human being.
Let me ask you this: If you had enough money to spend on 10 peoples health care and get moderate results or you could spend that same amount of money to make 2 people health care top notch but 8 other people would get nothing…What would be your choice?
Obviously, the most logical answer would be the help the 10 people the best you could. Thus limiting the amount of care you can give each person.
There are limits to everything in life.
Our health care system, while in need of some repair, cannot fairly be called a disaster. We are truly fortunate to live in a society that has a quality of life on par with, or greater than that of any other country. Nobody can be lawfully refused needed medical care by a hospital. If they do not have insurance to pay for it, then they must pay or settle somehow after the fact. To believe that we must pay for the medical needs of others, whether by taxation, or otherwise, is erroneous and a false notion of care for our fellow citizens. Such acts must be done freely, the time, place, and amount to be determined by the individual.
BG,
What dream world do you live in?
To state that “To believe we must pay for the medical needs of others, whether by taxation, or otherwise, is erroneous and a false notion” is the most absurd statement I have read in some time. In the first place, we are already paying. If the hospital isn’t paid, what do you think happens? The cost has to be passed on to others or they go out of business
More importantly, we, as a society, have decided to pay for lots of things for the needs of others (and ourselves – you could be out of a job tomorrow). Our country has decided there are literally hundreds of situations where we tax to pay for services that go to a select group. Whether it be seniors, children, indigents, , unemployed, farmers, ranchers, corporations, investment banks, auto makers, etc. etc. etc. We also pay for defense, law enforcement, schools, libraries, even building our roads, through taxes because we believe they are needed for the good of the country.
What in the world makes you say that medical care is somehow a “false notion”?
What dream world do I live in? None. I am a husband and a father living in the U.S. I struggle to keep ahead of all the bills, while working too much. I look to the future with trepidation, but always with hope. Poor rebuttal. Try again.
Yes, our country has numerous programs where taxpayers dollars go to select individuals or organizations – and we have trillions of dollars in debt to show for it, and states on the brink of financial disaster. What is your reasoning for why it should be done, other than because it is already being done with other things?
Okay, BG, I have to weigh in here. Of all the comments on health care I’ve seen, yours have to be the strangest the most misguided, and by extension, the cruelest and most inhumane. Let’s start with the idea that we shouldn’t pay for the medical needs of others. We already do. It’s called insurance. If we all didn’t contribute to a large pool, nobody would be insured for anything–cars, houses, medical. But you seem to have an idea that we shouldn’t insure each other (or pay taxes for our mutual benefit). Without that, we wouldn’t have a country in any real sense. What taxes do is pool money for things we can’t do individually, like raise an army, pave roads, sanitize water, put out fires, public health, many of which we simply take for granted and forget that government is even involved in or that we’re actually paying for. The problem with health care in this country is that government isn’t involved ENOUGH. Private medical insurance without further regulation leaves too many of us uncovered, and it’s both a national disgrace and a national crisis.
I’m always amused by the ability of people to separate taxes from the things they pay for–as if they were totally unrelated. When you state that we are trillions in debt because of the programs we fund, you’re missing exactly half of the equation. During the Bush administration we cut taxes by more than $1 trillion while expanding the programs they pay for. Do we spend too much, or do we tax too little? Or both? (By the way, how has the economy fared since that tax reduction? Wasn’t it guaranteed to stimulate economic growth, at least in theory?)
Beyond all that, though, is a basic philosophic issue. I don’t want to live in a country in which we don’t take care of each other. I’m sure Somalia is a lovely place, if you’re a wealthy and well-armed warlord. Not so nice if you aren’t. I don’t want to live where it’s every man for himself, thank you. I WANT to pay taxes so that my neighbor is protected from a random catastrophe, be it a tornado destroying his home or an illness wiping out his income. And I honestly don’t understand how anyone could disagree with that.
Mr. Stein – you are either missing my point or skewing it to your rhetorical / sophistical advantage. I pay taxes, support my government, and vote. I like to see my taxes, and those of everyone else, be used by the government for things that are in the government’s proper realm of responsibility, not the realm which our elected officials have decided to create for themselves in recent history. I never said I am anti-tax, I never said I don’t believe in helping others. I give back to the community monetarily and voluntarily as I am able to. I am a firm believer in the common good. We can take care of each other in circumstances such as you mentioned above, without government involvement or intervention, except in extreme, large scale situations.
Sure our money goes into a pool, or however the insurance company sees fit, when you buy their product, of whatever kind, but you buy it FOR YOURSELF. If you don’t put in, you don’t benefit from it. I know healthcare is an important issue to you, both from a personal experience, and looking at the larger picture – but your concept that the government is the answer to these issues is a disavowment of personal initiative and responsibility.
OK BG,
You’d like to see your taxes be used by the government for things that are in its proper realm of responsibility. What might that be?
Oh, really? Then explain how I’m supposed to replace the private insurance I lost when my newspaper folded when my wife has a pre-existing condition which will disqualify her–assuming that if I find a plan that will accept us I can afford it without the income I used to have and without a company paying the lion’s share. Will you chip in? Or will we have an affordable public plan that won’t refuse us when COBRA runs out? Beyond that, what kind of personal initiative would you suggest I take? Robbing a bank comes to mind. No, wait, the banks are bankrupt.
Why would the public plan be affordable? Because it can be subsidized by tax dollars, an advantage that private companies do not have. I don’t know what steps are best for you in replacing your health insurance. I don’t know your medical history, limitations, finances, etc. Neither is it my business to know or to judge. I just don’t believe that government-run health care is THE anwser. Following your line of reason, it seems that the government should get involved in replacing your job as well. The taxpayers would be footing your salary, but we would be helping you out. In fact, that may even be more vital than health insurance. Pretty hard to make do without any money. Ask the bankrupt banks.
BG, nobody is proposing government run health care, nor am I advocating it. The public plan will be affordable not because it is unfairly subsidized, but because it will be a large enough group to negotiate rates with doctors and drug companies, and because the administrative overhead will be considerably less than it is for private insurance (24% of medical costs) because they won’t have an army of adjusters whose job is to figure out a way not to pay claims or to deny you coverage outright. In countries with universal health care, that number averages less than 3%. But we can argue all those points all day and night. What it comes down to for me is the moral choice I believe this country must make. We are the only industrialized nation that hasn’t yet decided that health care is a basic human right. The consequences of that failure are becoming alarmingly clear, and the private medical marketplace alone has no answer.
What ever happened to doing something simply because it is the right thing to do? The truth is that way too many people die each year from treatable health care issues simply because they can’t afford the health care or don’t qualify for help. I had a good job when I was diagnosed with Metastatic Melanoma in Sept. 07. After the tumor was removed and I started Chemo the company fired me and cancelled my insurance (I was lucky to have the insurance when I was diagnosed). The Cobra plan was WAY too expensive to pay for and my wonderful doctor helped me get Medicaid to pay for it but that was soon cancelled due to state budget cuts so I now have an ongoing condition that I can’t get any treatment for. My Oncologist had his own practice when I met him and he wrote off many of my bills as he did with several of his patients, he lost his practice because of that and now is in with a group of doctors that have a board of directors that approves things. My doctor recently asked the board if he could see me and do a few tests for free because I can’t afford anything (Still unemployed with multiple health issues from the Chemo that keeps me from being able to work) the board denied his request! Even if I could work and got lucky enough to find a job with insurance (many companies no longer offer it) I would not be able to get coverage for Cancer (Pre-existing condition). I have reconciled with the fact that I will probably die soon from this just because I can’t afford treatment. I just hope that something will be done about health care so that others won’t have to go through what my family and I have gone through and continue to go through. As long as health care is treated as a business with and eye on profits there will always be people that are denied treatment simply because it costs the company money and ALL companies are ruled by the dollar. I don’t like government run programs in general but this is an issue that MUST be addressed! Private health care companies will Never do what is right, only what is profitable and many people pay the price of this travesty every day. And on the other hand government programs that wouldn’t cover everyone will always have qualifications that many people will not be able to meet so there will still be many Americans that will not be able to get desperately needed health care. So to those of you that only look at “how much will it cost me”, I hope you don’t have to find out about the problems of our system first hand. Good luck.
BG,
We didn’t hear back from you on what you’d like to see your taxes being used by the government for. You know, things that are in its proper realm of responsibility.