First, Obama says he is fully committed to a public health insurance option for health care reform. After the predictable, insane backlash from some Conservatives, who believe in things like Death Panels, he backpedals and says the public option isn’t an essential part of the plan. After the predictable back-backlash from liberals, who rightly say that any kind of reform without a public option can’t really be called health care reform, he has now re-backpedaled by saying he never said he didn’t support the public option.
What a frickin mess.
What is it with Democrats and backbones? There is a time to be bi-partisan, and there is a time to just say, look, we were elected by a huge majority, our platform included health care reform, we don’t care how big of a temper-tantrum the other side is throwing, we are going to go forward for the good of the country.
Nope. Democrats get mired in false compromises that are roundly rejected by everyone, especially those they are trying to appease. It’s a script I’m tired of, and one that I thought Obama was going to stray from.
I guess I’m relieved that he at least recognizes there is some value in having a base, and has re-retreated. Having a base is something Democrats during the Bush Administration never seemed to think was all that important.
So, yeah, it’s a mess, and who knows what happens from here. At least we have Rachel Maddow to sort it out:
Maddow: "A majority of personal bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical costs and a majority of those are people who actually have health insurance."
Health care reform without a public option is just more of the same.
49 comments:
Sorry to hear that you thought Obama would be different. It was pretty clear to me that he would compromise relentlessly.
As for those darned conservatives who are backlashing, well, some of those are the blue dogs who Obama needs to pass a bill in the Senate. Don't get me wrong: I think that healthcare reform without a public option isn't reform at all--I'm just cynical enough to think that the public option is a non-starter. So we'll get some watered-down "reform" that both parties can point to as a grand triumph in the midterm elections. Same old, same old.
Maybe, just maybe Obama isn't concerned about who "wins" and is really trying to get something accomplished. Crazy I know, but that is the (naive) way I read this development. Obama wants to get universal health coverage/ care. He doesn't care if it is a government program, coops, or something else entirely. He wants the results.
A favorite saying is "You get a lot more accomplished when you don't care about who gets the credit."
Is it possible in Washington?
Okay - I'm going to play my "I'm a Canadian" card, not that it trumps all others, but really! I just don't get the fear and ignorance out there, as if a public universal coverage plan is going to be the end of civilization as we know it. Trust me, it isn't. My extended family still lives in Canada, my brother-in-law is a practicing physician, my sister had a life threatening illness a few years ago, my other brother-in-law had a serious car accident last year, and it's all good. The care is excellent. Yes, there are waits of several months for elective procedures, and they are not going to do a hip replacement or a kidney transplant or call a code blue on an ill 90 year old with severe dementia. Is the Canadian system perfect? No. But it's a hell-of-a-lot better than our current unsustainable broken mess. I also just saw Michael Moore's "Sicko" plus a piece about a priest and a family in his parish which was not part of the movie. It makes one weep. Now where is the so-called religious right with their talk of family values and morality? Conspicuously silent.
Here's a thought. Health care today is about making money. How many surgeons do you know who live in $150,000 homes? And the drugs! Drug companies (and the doctors who push thier drugs to get their kick-backs) are even worse. Don't be naive, it's happening--all over the place. But helping people? That's a laugh. So, when a guy comes along and wants to make it actually help people, of course he's going to see reisistance. From everyone who has a dollar or a million or a billion to loose.
One of the reasons conservatives have been silent is because we have been silenced. I am confident of what could fix healthcare, but since I am thought to be someone who likes war, eating children, and watching people suffer, I will remain quiet.
Silent? When have the conservatives been silent? Who is packing guns and yelling at the town hall meetings? Who is all over Fox News talking about Death Panels and killing old people? Who is yelling about Nazis, socialism, fascism and whatever other evil they can think of? I wish the conservatives would be silent for a bit and listen.
Notice I said RELIGIOUS right. They evoke God's name and quote Bible verses all over the place when it's abortion or LGBT issues. But concern for the ill who are denied coverage or willingness to contribute to the common good? Nary a word from organizations like Focus On the Family. I don't they've been silenced. I think they are choosing to remain silent, which makes me wonder about how religious they really are.
Robert
I'd be happy to hear and advocate for any good ideas on health care reform you have to my congresspeople and the president. I agree entirely that it is possible not to want health care reform with no desire whatsoever to eat children.
But it does seem like the 'bipartisan' goal posts have been changing, such that end of life counseling, an obvious, bipartisan idea added largely because of conservative advocacy earlier in the process, has been removed from the bill because of 'silenced' conservative protesters.
It's just more knee jerk Liberal Conservatives not being silent at all. They have been planning these bumper sticker talking points to thwart any change. They had 15 years to make changes from when it was an issue in 1994. They have no ideas, just more of the simple minded hate lines like; "kill Grandma" and "death panels", "flip floppers" etc.. It works on the religious level too.
And in the end...
the love you take...
is equal to
the love you make.
The hate you make
is equal to the hate you create
I want to follow the comments so I must leave a comment. This is my comment.
We’re told the health care system is untenable – yet if we like our plan we don’t have to change – yet reform is so vital to the economy it must be passed now – yet it increases the debt & explodes the federal budget – yet they’re doing it for families on the verge of bankruptcy – yet the majority strongly opposes the Bill – yet they are vilified by the very government who wants to help them.
And you wonder why Health Care Reform is dead in the water. Lets see, Democrats have full control of government. But they'll blame the Republicans for stopping reform? Face it, Obama's inexperience is showing. He had huge momentum behind him and in six months has managed to waste it so much that now he can't even get his own party to go along with him on one of his principle campaign promises.
You can blame the mean, ugly, hateful Republican, you can call them names and demonize them all you want but the truth is that the majority of American oppose the plan, including substantial number of Democrats (polls show this) and calling them names isn't helping the cause.
Well, Robert, I for one want health care reform. I was denied insurance based on an unnecessary (and later proven false) test taken years ago without my consent. I want what every other wealthy nation in the world has for its citizens.
As I said before, all this rationalization and bloviating and partisanship is just so much arguing.
The Republicans had years and years to reform the incredibly broken health care system and, because they are only interested in greater profits for themselves, did nothing.
Reaganomics failed so spectacularly, the economy collapsed.
I'm sticking with my previously stated formula. Argue all you want. Republicans are greedy, heartless bastards. Obama may fail (as has been so expressly wished by the opposition), but he at least made it a priority, to care for the needy.
PG, I am sorry to know of your own personal struggles with the health care/insurance. I have a few stories I can tell you as well.
I am a conservative. I don't see myself has greedy or heartless but I am a bastard.
My point is simply this. Obama and the democrats held all the cards. Remember when the talking heads predicted that Democrats would rule the next 20 years because the Republican party was no longer valid. Now the party in power whines and blames the other side for a mess they made themselves. If they can't control the debate with all the chips on their table then the party is in serious trouble.
By the way, I quit putting any hope in the Republican party long time ago for the very same reason you should stop putting your hope in the Democrats.
I'd like to get more clarity on why people oppose the bill. Liberals like myself oppose it if it doesn't include a public option, because absent a true single-payer, universal system, we believe that's the only way to bring insurance premiums down to reasonable levels.
As far as I can tell, conservatives are against it because it includes death panels and is framed as a government take over of health care, both of which are outright lies. The name calling comes in for the people who propogate those lies (largely Republicans, who have not hidden their desire to see the president fail at the expense of the health care reform), and the people who believe them, who are, quite frankly, idiotic for believing this nonsense.
The thing is, I totally agree with you Robert that Democrats have bungled the whole thing. But the reason they bungled it is because they tried to compromise with Republicans, who are only interested in seeing the whole thing go down in flames. Also, there are too many conservative blue dog Dems who are getting too much money from big Pharma. It's a failure of the Democratic party to be liberal enough. And this problem isn't solved by voting more Republicans into office.
I don't put my faith in the Democratic party. They're bastards, too.
I just pray nothing happens to me before I turn 65 in five more years. Don't want to lose the house necessarily.
In the meantime, I go to Latin America. I had a molar capped seven years ago in Guatemala for $60. A local dentist examined it last month and said it was an excellent fit and primo materials.
That's the other thing about U.S. health care; it completely sucks. People get sicker as a result of going into the hospital many times. So many unnecessary tests, it is criminal. My brother-in-law just had appendicitis and they botched the removal, and he ran the risk of infection and had to stay in the hospital an extra couple of days.
Now that I think about it, I don't really care about health insurance all that much, because I don't want all the CT scans, MRIs, PSA tests, and other crap they're selling anyway.
Maybe I'll become a Christian Scientist.
One of MANY letters on the subject in today's New York Times:
To the Editor:
Many Americans get health insurance through their employer. So if they become chronically ill to the extent that they can’t work, they lose both income and access to health care. That fact alone ought to be enough to scrap our current system and come up with a universal plan for everyone.
The rich probably can’t even imagine the plight of being seriously ill and having no help available. But how dare anyone condemn plans that would assure coverage for everyone. Who among us believes that we ourselves don’t deserve access to health care when needed? We don’t know in advance what will befall us, what care we’ll need or when. It’s not a choice.
To allow human suffering and death because of lack of health insurance is beyond a moral outrage. It is primitive, uncivilized, barbaric and unforgivable in a country as rich as the United States.
Nancy Bennett O’Hagan
Swatragh, Northern Ireland
Aug. 24, 2009
PG; Nice Editorial piece.
Robert J. Day; "Now the party in power whines and blames the other side for a mess they made themselves. If they can't control the debate with all the chips on their table then the party is in serious trouble". Republicans have blamed Dems for everything since 1866 and the same for the Dems. It's a no win for anyone. The lack of a logical debate is what is at fault with health care. When people have made up their minds that a public system is automatically bad, even when there is an existing system (medicare) that even the private system depends on to survive, it reflects negatively on their intelligence and lack of willingness to debate constructively. When they oppose the effort to debate the issue with shouting it down odiously and close their ears and minds to a reasonable discussion, they have taken away any validity of attempting to blame someone else.
Robert, you said you were a conservative. By that, I presume you cried foul and bloody murder at the cost of the wars Bush perpetrated.
But maybe you meant you were a capitalist. We've been talking about health care under a capitalist system, but I think profit-based health care is oxymoronic on the face of it.
For example, my bro-in-law's recent surgery. Because the doctors and nurses slipped a little in the procedures, the hospital profited more by keeping him there an extra day or two. More tests, more drugs, more time in care. The corporation, which functions as an individual person according to law, has no soul, no interest in health, only in profit. Hospitals, as capitalist enterprises, function to make profit, not to heal.
So, actually, this loud, shouting match, the entire game being played, about fitting the round peg of health care into the square hole of capitalism is nonsensical from the start. All these people screaming about "socialism" aren't crazy; they just don't want to live in a system that tries to help its citizens. They want to live in a competitive, capitalist, dog-eat-dog, crazy world of individualism, which is -- in the long run -- a form of suicide. We don't care for our neighbors; we end up killing ourselves in the process.
Maybe I exaggerate.
Dan & PG - yes, as a conservative I believe Capitalism is the best economic system for all concerned. I would not give it three cheers but it is certainly worth two in my opinion.
Something about me may surprise you. I have masters in social work and masters in divinity. I have served in the both church and non-profit sector my entire adult life. I started a program that builds homes for the poorest Americans in my home state of KY. I grew up poor and a recipient of the War on Poverty programs. I believe in justice, service, and advocating for those in need.
It is not a contradiction to be a conservative and compassionate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others. The Chronicle of Philanthropy also confirms this to be true.
If I am forced (by govt. or anyone else) to share my resources then it is no longer charity. If I am forced to volunteer then there ceases to be any incentive or reward. I believe that charity and philanthropy are a higher good for both the giver and receiver than any government coerced wealth redistribution schemes. The Bible does not tell us it is governments responsibility to care for the poor but it is mine and yours.
Capitalism is under attack on two fronts - Government and giant corporations (no one opposes capitalism more that the most successful capitalist). Power is the desire of the first and greed is the desire of the second. They have a symbiotic relationship with one another. Corporations keep governments in power and governments make sure the corporations make a profit. Just follow the money since Obama has been in office. How much has flowed to the very same cooperation responsible for the mess and whose schemes were supported by the previous administration?
Remember, government is run on politics which is often a power hungry and nasty game. That means things like charity, health care, and housing, becomes tools of politicians. If government controls all of these things then the most vulnerable among us are at the mercy of the power needs of politicians. I am not convinced they will be any better in their hands than in the hands of the insurance and health corporations. In fact, I believe it will be worse.
I appreciate the dialogue.
It doesn't surprise me that you are involved in such charitable work and have such a philanthropic outlook. At all. That's how people rationalize their affluence, achieved at the expense of others. Tell it to the workers at Wal-Mart. It's a shell game.
People donate to the "poor" of foreign countries because it makes them feel they have done their part. It also makes them feel superior.
I still hold that "Profit-Based Health Care" is an oxymoron. And tell me why the U.S. is the only country this wealthy where the government doesn't provide for its people.
I'm sure you are a fine and upstanding person, Robert. But so was the Rich Young Ruler who walked away sadly from Jesus because he couldn't give away his status.
And why haven't all these screaming Christians at Town Hall meetings remembered about rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's? Pay your freaking taxes.
So-called conservatives held the reins for so long, Karl Rove said they would rule forever. In that time, greed ruled. The rich got rich and the poor got poorer.
And, Robert, your "concerns" about government intervention in health care is simply another way of positing fear, which is all the so-called conservatives have been hawking since Reagan and before: fear. You give money to causes, fine. Because actual change that might cause you to lose some of your capital or power scares the hell out of you.
That sounded a little harsh maybe. It's just that conservatives have been in power for a long time and things were terrible, unethical, immoral, and criminal. And I don't hear you knocking the previous administration. Did you protest the war?
I thought Paul Krugman's most recent column hit the nail on the head:
"Call me naïve, but I actually hoped that the failure of Reaganism in practice would kill it. It turns out, however, to be a zombie doctrine: even though it should be dead, it keeps on coming.
Let’s talk for a moment about why the age of Reagan should be over.
First of all, even before the current crisis Reaganomics had failed to deliver what it promised. Remember how lower taxes on high incomes and deregulation that unleashed the “magic of the marketplace” were supposed to lead to dramatically better outcomes for everyone? Well, it didn’t happen..."
Read the whole thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html
Krugman won the Nobel Prize for economics, Robert. So I'm going with him on this. Sorry.
Capitalism is under attack on two fronts - Government and giant corporations (no one opposes capitalism more that the most successful capitalist). Power is the desire of the first and greed is the desire of the second.
That threw me for a loop. I had never thought of capitalism as different from giant corporations, because I believe the natural result of unregulated capitalism to be the monopoly of giant corporations. I'll have to think on that one.
Thanks for your reasoned and articulate defense of conservatism. I may disagree with a lot of it, but it's good to be reminded that conservatism isn't really about death panels and war. Mennonites especially have good historical reasons to fear governments.
It's probably good for conservatives to be reminded that liberals aren't pro-government so much as pro-counterbalance-to-unrestrained-capitalism and government is the only institution capable of providing that balance. Another way to put it is that I fear the power of large corporations (whose goal is profit) more than I fear the government. When we get to the point where money no longer buys government social policy, I may switch sides. Whoever has the most power is the most dangerous.
Why do I always get to play the bad cop in the "good cop, bad cop" scenario?
Nice synthesis, Good Cop Dan.
Maybe it's because I'm too timid to play bad cop. You're right though, this is out of balance. The next time Bob chimes in, I'll play bad cop and leave space for you to be good cop.
Deal. I'll give it my best shot.
Dan, there are many misconception about what is a conservative, as I am sure there are misconceptions about what is to be a liberal (you pointed one out to me in your last post). Here are 10 principle that I believe most conservatives espouse although we are not always consistent with them.
1. Believe in an enduring moral order. Human nature is constant and moral truths are permanent. This leads to a strong sense of what is right and wrong, good and evil.
2. Adheres to customs, conventions, and continuity. The enduring moral order must be passed on from generation to generation for a sense of cultural and moral continuity. Change ought to be gradual and carefully considered.
3. Believe in the principle of prescription. Prior generations have established customs by immemorial usage. We are unlikely to make any brave new discoveries in morals, truths, or politics.
4. Are guided by the principle of prudence. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences not merely temporary advantages or popularity.
5. Pays attention to the principle of variety. Some forms of inequality must exist. All attempts at leveling will eventually lead to social stagnation and ultimate demise of society.
6. Are chastened by imperfectability. Man, being imperfect, will never have a perfect society. All we can reasonably expect and work toward is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society.
7. Are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Private property teaches responsibility, motivates integrity, supports culture, and raises mankind above the level of drudgery affording him leisure to think and freedom to act.
8. Uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism. Genuine and healthy community exists where decisions most directly affecting the lives of its citizens are made locally and voluntarily.
9. Perceive the need for restraints upon power and human passions. Rigorous endeavors must be made to limit and balance political power so that anarchy or tyranny may not arise.
10. Understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled. Without permanence society slips into anarchy and without progress society stagnates and dies. This calls for reasoned and temperate progress.
I adopted these from Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk. You may disagree with these but at least you know what motivates the conservative.
Dan, I didn't realize I was signed in on my daughters email address. The last post about 10 principles is from me. Sorry for the confusion, although Sharon is a conservative too.
Come on, Dan. Don't let him invoking his daughter shake you. If you're going to play bad cop, you have to POUNCE. Think pit bull. Chomp down hard, don't let go, and shake your head.
I'm too impatient. Nice rationalization there, Robert. I don't have a similar secular list of precepts for my ideology, whatever label it may wear. Unless you count the Sermon on the Mount, I guess.
Jesus pretty much discounted money as a good cornerstone for one's life. He didn't think it even mattered if people were paid the same amount for unequal work. I think he probably thought money sucked.
Conservatives/capitalists see things in terms of dollar signs, from Sarah Palin to Tom Delay. I prefer to shape my outlook on things more in terms of social justice.
Plus, your economic theory -- which has mutated from voodoo economics to zombie economics, to use Paul Krugman's term -- hasn't worked. The poor are poorer, the helpless even more helpless, despite your claim of charitable efforts.
But I do want to know what you thought and did about the Iraq war. I do like what the NYTimes editorial says today about "A C.I.A. report offers one more compelling reason for a far broader inquiry into President George W. Bush’s lawless detention policies." Go for it, Justice Department pit bulls. Sic em.
PG, you are asking me to defend Republicans which I am not willing to do. They long ago, if they ever did, stopped representing true conservatism.
Dan wanted to know why conservatives oppose health care reform. I presented the framework for trying to understand their motives. You can either demonize or try to understand. Since surveys show that conservatism is still the default setting in all 50 states by margin of 1-34 pts, it would seem prudent for liberals at least try to understand them instead of dismissing them as evil idiots. Face the fact, it is conservative democrats holding up reform not republicans - they don't have the numbers to ask for more donuts at congressional coffee breaks.
Both sides are guilty of group think: "everyone who thinks like us agrees that ________". So when I tell you that I supported the war, that automatically makes me a bad person in you eyes because everyone who thinks like you agrees that no decent person could support the war.
Here is where you now call me a baby killer. The conversation stops and we get no where on health care reform - which by the way conservatives (at least this one) wants.
PG,
You can't fool me anymore. You were against the Iraq war because you wanted to see more Muslims die at the hands of Saddam. Stop trying to make yourself out as someone who cares about social justice when in reality your opposition to the Iraqi was is because you like watching people with dark skin be tortured.
Now, pg, can we all agree ascribing motivations to others is dreadfully wrong? I sure hope my example illustrates why you need to tone it down, and stop telling conservatives why they do what they do.
And Robert Two. I see your sarcasm. I don't care about your motivations. And I certainly don't care what you BELIEVE your motivations or intentions were. We all know where the road of good intentions leads. I only care about the actions that you carry our or support -- killing, torture, suffering, and greed. I guess I can't prove greed, but nobody's perfect.
And your examples weren't based in anything real regarding my movitations. They were nonsensical.
What depresses me is that otherwise decent people DID support the war. And not for good motivations either, but out of fear. I guess I can't ascribe motivations to individuals I don't know (I'm a crappy bad cop, PG, sorry), but I can say that collectively we went to war out of fear of Iraq, not out of any pure motivation of liberation of Iraqis.
Go back and read what people were writing at the time. It was all about the lies of nuclear weapons. Only after WMD were not found did we collectively find that we had the pure motivation of helping people. And even then, the plan was to privatize their oil fields. The plan is still to keep American bases there until the end of time.
On the other hand, a lot of those conservative principles are very reasonable. I think quite a few of them are liberal, in fact :)
But I do disagree with this:
"It is conservative democrats holding up reform not republicans"
That is simply not true. Conservative democrats may be holding up reform, but only BECAUSE republicans are uniformly holding up reform. If republicans were negotiating in good faith, we'd have health care reform.
So, pg, tell me. Are conservatives stupid because they hate people, or do they hate people because they are stupid?
Would you please enlighten me so someday maybe I can dream to love everyone the way you are able to.
Oh, Robert Two, my love, I do not think you are stupid, and basically I am riffing on all this, not arguing, because I love rolling around on the floor, holding my insides, laughing, hoping some little jazz pinprick pops an ego balloon of delusion here or there amid this online champagne bubble Lawrence Welk polka. Constitutionally Built Good Cop Dan can make sense for you; you should listen to him. Don't listen to me because I'm not trying to convince you; I know better than climb that hill. No Sisyphus, moi. But I will concede one thing. I have decided to go ahead with that colonoscopy after all -- since doctors have been after me to have one for about a decade now, just as they were after me to get a prostate biopsy for years and years, which I finally did, and it was, to quote the nurse, "completely negative" (except for the very positive cash input into the hospital and doctor's pockets) -- since Robert J. Day has explained to me his belief in charity and since health insurance won't have me and, although I work my ass off, I have no savings whatsoever and no prospects of ever retiring, and since he doesn't want the government to do it, I'm telling the hospital that the great and compassionate Robert J. Day is footing the bill and, to show my appreciation, I'm inviting him to attend the procedure. He can even don a mask and insert the plunger, if he so desires, with sympathy or symbolism, his choice. His reward will be great. Maybe not in heaven, but somewhere, presumably populated by the gun-toting, Hitler-mustache painting, tea-bagging, war-wielding, town meeting shouting, anti-Obama (but non-racist, naturally) hoards who, I am more than sure, agree completely with his conservative/capitalist manifesto credos. Dude! Thanks.
I'm back. I am serious in this.
My urologist's name is Gregory Maurer and he can be found at Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Il.
If you think individual charity is the way to run the railroad, this is your chance to put your money where your credo is. It probably won't cost much more than $1200 or so. (Although, I must warn you that the prostate biopsy came in at over $8000, due to their insistence on tests, including a CT scan -- which was fun, but completely unnecessary).
If you two Roberts want to divvy up the cost, that's up to you. Contact the hospital or give me your information and I will confirm that you will cover the cost of this procedure, a routine colonoscopy. I'm 60 years old. They've told me for ten years that I needed to have this done.
If you do this, I will not change my mind about the need for universal health care in this country, because not everyone has the ability to talk someone else into paying their bills. But if you do not, or try to foist the cost onto some other entity, then I will very much enjoy hearing your rationale and explanation for this refusal. I also will relish hearing you explain why you are not a huge, Goddamned-to-hell hypocrite.
PG
My wife is a nurse in an endoscopy clinic. She comes home with stories of the doctor's she works with influencing the techs, nurses and even patients about how 'evil' "ObamaCare" is. One of the doctors was even showing clips from Glenn Beck's show. Glenn Beck is what I call one of the; 'salesmen of dissent'. What is really funny is how the Daily Show exposed his hypocrisy from when he was with CNN and telling a completely different story of the health care system just 16 months ago, to his current sales job of lies with Fox news. Really Sad
The health care crisis is really quite simple; If everyone is covered with a health care plan, whether it be public or private, it would be a win win for everyone. Doctors and patients alike.
If we as citizens were allowed to at least try a public system, I have no doubt that the connotations of fear and evil that Republican types, greedy doctors, pharmaceuticals, insurance industry and glutton lobbyist have applied to it would be dispelled and most would find it useful and helpful. Especially those without coverage.
It's been 24 hours and the compassionate capitalists haven't notified me if I'm even getting the health care they promised me. Even Canada is faster than this.
Maybe they only provide charitable giving to people they like. What do I have to do, play Stepin Fetchit?
I don't expect to hear from them ever again. Typical.
pg,
You just need to have patience. Let's do it just like the government. First, I will need some forms from you proving you really need this medical treatment. Once you prove that to me, I will put you on a waiting list until the necessary resources are available.
Wow, you must be so happy to get care just like the government will before anybody else gets it!
Not sure I trust your sincerity, Robert Two. What waiting list are you talking about? Are you financing other people's colonoscopies?
I don't think you and the other Robert ever had any intention of providing help to the needy. He never replied at all.
I wouldn't mind waiting. But the health care you promise NEVER materializes. The Bush administration had eight years to fix the system. I never heard them mention health care reform once.
So I have nothing to rely upon except your sarcasm. You said you knew the answer to the health care situation, too. Quote "I am confident of what could fix healthcare." Is sarcasm it?
Under the current system, I have already been waiting ten years with no help in sight.
Robert Day, do you have any suggestions?
There is no question Bush dropped the ball on health care. It is his not dealing with it that now has people convinced bad change is better than no change.
You gotta start somewhere.
I'm so sick of the idiocy of this battle and of the American mindset, the expressed attitudes on both war and health care (at least what I see on TV and read in the local letters to the editor column), I'm just prepared to die. I give up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html
Kristof's column today -- about how the need for health care causes some couples to divorce -- is particularly good.
I feel such contempt for those who supported the wars or remained silent while now they actively decry government spending on health care.
You can't serve God and Capital.
So true PG
Post a Comment