Patrick.net

Follow
Befriend
75 comments
Followed by 0
Following 0
Ignored by 0
Ignoring 0
Ignore srla
Registered Mar 05, 2009

srla's most recent comments:

• On 22 Mar 2010 in Arch-Conservative view of Healthcare..., srla said:

  It can be both inspiring and utterly depressing to look back at the quality of leadership we had in this country in the past, both on the left and on the right. Without Teddy R's trust busting, the country could well have descended into chaos. And without his appreciation for public spaces, we might well have far fewer of our most treasured national parks today.

  Back then, it seemed a large portion of the electorate on both sides of the spectrum had an appreciation for intellectual abilities and actually admired leaders who were the best, brightest, and most educated. Today, well... can you imagine Bush or Palin holding any sort of meaningful conversation with any of the great Republican leaders of the past?

• On 22 Mar 2010 in Healthcare reform done deal!, srla said:

  Apparently the fringe that is currently dominating the Republican party is now trying to mount a bunch of legal challenges and amendments to state constitutions to try and fight the legal mandate in the bill. Ironic, especially since the one true example of a system of mandated universal insurance in the U.S. was instituted under and championed by Mitt Romney in MA.

  Of course, any healthcare economist will tell you that the only way to keep insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions is to mandate coverage (otherwise people will wait until they are sick to buy insurance, and the whole system collapses).

  But just as importantly, our emergency rooms are nearing collapse due to the huge numbers of uninsured who use them as doctors of last resort - and under the current law, they can't be turned away if they are in danger of dying. This leads not only to insanely crowded emergency rooms and ambulances being turned away repeatedly from full ERs, but it also leads to the rest of us paying for those who either can't afford insurance, are barred from buying insurance due to preexisting conditions, or who are those irresponsible jerks who don't buy insurance because they think they can get free care "in an emergency".

  Now there IS a truly ultra conservative approach to this situation. Simply pass a law that anyone without insurance (or cash upfront) will be denied any and all medical care. Get hit by an uninsured driver? Tough luck. Slice open your artery in a game of hockey? You might want to try super glue. This is true freedom - the freedom to die from denial of care from even the most treatable of conditions. Sounds like an ultra-conservative utopia, doesn't it? Hmm, wonder why none of the tea partiers are proposing this?

• On 22 Mar 2010 in Arch-Conservative view of Healthcare..., srla said:

  ahasuerus99 makes some good points. This bill is quite flawed and does only the bare minimum to contain costs. The strange thing is that this is essentially a moderate Republican bill passed by Democrats and demonized by some of the very Republicans that either proposed or, in the case of Romney, passed almost identical plans in the past. The Republicans clearly decided to follow the William Kristol playbook from '93 and put all their eggs in the obstructionist basket.

  The problem with this approach is that, as Kristol so famously warned in '93, if any element of the bill ended up getting passed by the Dems, the Republicans would be SOL. Why? Well, for one thing, the obstructionist path require absurd claims that contradict both logic and past Republican claims. Casting their lot with the "death panel" crazies was a calculated risk, and one that they lost. Also, as Kristol warned, elements that are passed could grow in popularity as the public learns about them and grows accustomed to them (like extending the age of kids on plans to 26 and eliminating the "donut hole").

  As a result of taking the Kristol obstructionist route, the Republicans were stuck repudiating almost every moderate cost control measure. What they were left with was tort reform, draconian "high risk pools", and a whole lot of nothing.

  So now they are forced to hope the public will keep its collective head shoved where the sun don't shine and not ever figure out what is actually in the bill, or, just as significantly, what is not in the bill. Sure, most don't want "socialized medicine" (apparently except for Medicare) but they DO seem to want an elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and they want subsidies to enable the less well off buy insurance (and get them out of emergency rooms). See the problem here? What if the public actually figures out what is in the bill? (Especially since the major elements of the bill all poll very well on their own.)

  Now I supported healthcare as a first step, to allow everyone to buy insurance. But I don't support many other elements of the Democratic agenda. So I fear the gamble the Republicans took (and lost) with healthcare will come back to haunt them in the near and long term. It looks to me like they listened to Kristol one time too many.