The recent announcement by A.G. Eric Holder to bring the Sept 11 terrorists to civilian trial in NYC is astounding -- not only because it defies common sense, but also because if anything goes wrong, the shit will fly directly on President Obama.
By anything going wrong, I mean: Acquittal, more terrorist attacks, revealing damaging information which compromises US intelligence activities, lengthy PR appearances by defendants, and obligatory media circus. In other words, there is almost zero chance that at the end, reasonable people will say, "Ah, justice was served."
The more credible result is that the majority of the American voting public will conclude that Mr. Obama has terrible judgement. They will recall the bad fellas that he associated with in the past, and the poor choices he has made in appointing Holder and Geitner, not to mention the choice of Biden as VP. Despite having a filibuster proof congress He has failed to accomplish any of his major campaign promises, and this monstrosity of a health care reform bill will be remembered - if it gets passed - as the worst piece of lawmaking since prohibition.
Thus, I am predicting the end of the Obama era, starting with the terrorist trial. The Republicans will sweep in the legislature next year, by promising to undo the bloated health care reform bill, and Obama will be back in Chicago looking for a new house in 2012. The slogan for the election: "Obama Lied; Hope Died."
You heard it here first.
10 comments:
Even if the red-staters take the Senate back they will not have 60 seats ... therefore what the blue-staters do with health care now will be tatooed on our nation's forehead probably forever.
Isn't that depressing?
George: it's not depressing for those without access to healthcare under our current system, e.g., people with preexisting conditions who get laid off, and those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder whose jobs don't provide insurance. I don't think these folks give a shit if the healthcare bill has been totally peverted by the intransigence of the right, they'll just be happy to be able to get treated when they or their kids get sick.
Is it possible to have a health care system that costs less and covers more people without giving its (mis)management over to government breaucrats? I think so. As P.J. O'Roarke said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
We're still waiting for the Repubs to propose such a system.
Republicans have proposed these changes:
1) Individuals can buy health-care insurance across state lines (=more competition, less cost).
2) (Real) tort reform in medical malpractice arena (= fewer unnecessary medical tests and much less lost ... and more doctors)
3) Insurance cos. cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions (= fairer coverage).
4) Individuals can carry their medical insurance from job to job (= fairer coverage and less cost)
5) No coverage for illegal aliens (= less cost)
6) No coverage for elective abortions (= less cost)
7) Congress must chose from the same medical insurance/use the same rules as the rest of us (= fairness).
Enough?? Have you read about any of these in the MSM or on major network TV news? I thought not.
Is this the best you can do? Sad.
1. Buying insurance across state lines is a race to the poorest coverage for the lower cost. Some economists argue that increased competition reduces the insurance companies' leverage to negotiate reimbursement rates to doctors, thus resulting in higher, not lower, costs.
2. Agreed
3. Only works if you mandate everyone get insurance. Do they do that? I thought not.
4. Not much help if your job doesn't offer insurance or your self-employed, or out of work.
5. How does this lower costs, assuming illegal aliens pay for their insurance? If you're talking about emergency room visits, we're talking 1/10 of 1% savings, at most.
6. Whoopee. Saves a pittance as most abortions only cost about $500. This "savings" will probably be eaten up by the cost of caring for women who get botched "illegal" abortions. Besides, why deny women a legal health procedure just because you don't like it? I think vasectomies are against god's law, but I don't try to restrict other men from getting one.
7. This, of course makes no sense. Congress/government agencies negotiate health coverage just like any company would. There are no special laws that apply to them alone.
Enough!
Tort Reform: I support a law prohibiting all class-action suits. Lawyers are the only benefactors of such litigation.
Also a cap on personal injury/ negligence suits limited to compensation for medical costs. Injury should not become a revenue opportunity for ambulence chasing lawyers.
I agree with George on #7 It does make sense to force the lawmakers to be subject to the laws they pass.
Rick,
Retorts:
1)Why is it when the Big O calls for competition from the government (single payer) it's good, but more competition within the private sector is bad?
3) Why can't insurance for pre-existing conditions be prorated based upon acturial risks? They do have bad driver risk pools for car insurance.
4) The self-employed can now buy pooled insurance in some states at a much lower price. There is also COBRA. Maybe it could be made part of unemployment benefits?
5) You've got to be joshing ... 0.1% for 12 million people? How about 10% (the cost of ER care alone)?
6) Yes simple abortions cost $500 (not including pre and post natal care). And adding in late-termers, the real cost must be at least double that. And 1.5 million abortions a year adds up to almost $2 billion (17% paid by Medicaid ... no matter what the Big O says ... look it up).
7) There already has been included a provision that Congress is exempt ... and I'll bet that sweetheart union healthcare will be also be exempted.
Chech mate.
This is my last comment on this subject, which we will never agree on. But here's the take from conservative columnist Ross Douthat, which supports my toriginal thesis that the Repubs are not seriously trying to reform the system:
"In the health care debate, too, conservative and libertarian policy thinkers have floated a number of plans to expand insurance coverage. Some are incremental and some are sweeping; some build on the existing system and some would essentially replace it. But any of them would be better than that threadbare plan House Republicans actually put forward, which would hardly expand coverage at all."
Hey Rick, maybe you need to write your own blog. That way you don't have to debate anyone.
Post a Comment