Sunday, March 21, 2010

Historic Health Care Bill passes

I know that feelings run high on this one. Indeed, there will be challenges ahead of various kinds. Republicans in the Senate will try to stop the fixes. There will be legal challenges made, and we know that the make-up of the Supreme Court leans "conservative." Frankly, might a Republican Congress and President completely reverse it in three years?

In any case, I wanted the historical marker here. If you can do it civilly, what is your prediction for the days to come--specifically (generic ranting isn't what I'm looking for)? Do you agree with the independent budget office that it will reduce the deficit over 100 billion dollars in ten years and a trillion in 20? Does it foretell a huge defeat for the Democratic party in the Fall and next presidential election? Will there be riots? Will the insured forget about it if there is no real change to their insurance? Will those who have to get insurance ultimately be glad to have it? Will it lead to the greatest fracture between the states and the government since the Civil War? Will someone try to assassinate certain lead Democrats? Will history look back at this decision as a crucial moment in the decline of the United States as a superpower, or will history wonder why anyone ever argued against it?

Again, civilly, specifically, what do you think the concrete consequences will be? If I remember, I might check back in a year to reflect on what things look like then.

8 comments:

Jason said...

"...or will history wonder why anyone ever argued against it?"

If you judge solely on how the vast majority of citizens of all democratic countries (excepting the U.S.) currently feel about their universal health care and the history of its adoption, you have a pretty solid case for the above quote.

Ben Garrison said...

After following this process for the last 14 months, it seems apparent to me that some of the harshest and even personally degrading invectives have come from various organizations on the right. It only makes sense that those debating with clearer heads usually see the future implications of what is happening. Hot heads don't usually mean sharp minds. For Democrats to endure what they've endured, and still have the guts to pass this thing is pretty incredible. Check out this editorial in the Washington Post to get a good review of what I mean: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032103484.html. In short, you have it right on Jason.

::athada:: said...

It would be pretty sad indeed (and perhaps telling of the times) if we saw riots during this era, not for two enduring, expensive wars, not for the torture and detention of innocent people on a Communist island, but for attempting to offer people health care.

David Wright FB-posted this realistic proposal by a Republican strategist - refreshing and sane! He even throws out the idea of accepting a carbon tax in exchange for a repeal of the new tax on high-income earners.
How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo'

John C. Gardner said...

I favor universal health care but want it funded by a VAT and real cost saving procedures. Otherwise it is simply an addition to a deficit that I fear will simply add to our national debt and ultimate national default or inflation. Let American be actually virtuous and pay for something rather than spend and borrow.

Alvin Wooters said...

Personally, I doubt that we will ever see real savings in this issue. But assuming that the Democrats are right, and we really do save the 100 Million, what will be the cost paid in terms of the quality of health options for the people? What will we feel when the Doctor tells our parent that they are two old to worry about, that their contributions to society are to few to matter? What will it cost us in terms of medical research for cures that will no longer happen because the Government has decided to use the money to build bigger bombs? You can manipulate figures, all day, to get them to say what ever you desire, but I question what we will really feel about what all this will really cost.

Ben Garrison said...

I've heard a lot of things like this being bantered around but I simply don't see it in the bill at all. If you have insurance through your employer, it doesn't even affect you at all. If you need help buying insurance, you get a subsidy, not a dictate on what type of care you can get. Of course others say this is just part of the slippery slope to some form of socialized medicine where government tells doctors what they can and can't do, but we have a legislative system set up where we can vote for representatives to counter that. We don't live under dictators.

Ken Schenck said...

Most of my questions have to do with funding and monopolies, as I think most of the objections here also revolve around. I can wish the two sides could have got together and compromised for the greater good, but obviously that didn't happen. I can fear that there is too much tax and spend and not enough compete and pay. I don't know the details and I fear what a crisis would do before the thing starts generating money.

But all that said, I am hopeful that it is a start that can be tweaked as we move forward into something better. I don't know if we would have ever started at all if it were left to the Republicans. So, with a little trepidation, I'll take what the Democrats have given us and hope that some sane person perfects it later.

Signed, hopeful and fearful...

Jason said...

I find it very odd that when people talk about increased government spending on health care, they don't seem to concern themselves with the question of why health care is so expensive in this country in the first place. Anyone even remotely concerned with bringing down federal spending on health, regardless of the bill recently passed, needs to be concerned with bringing health care costs down to global market values. The protectionism of the health care industry is beyond absurd. Where are the free market fundamentalists decrying patent monopolies? I don't even see a whisper of it on the Cato Institute site, and they're the most libertarian of the bunch. Bring costs down, and we can save on federal health spending, not to mention private. In fact the federal budget could cover every single human being in this country, not one person excluded, three times over if we overthrow the stranglehold Big Med has over the citizenry.
Common sense found here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/time-to-talk-seriously-about-health-care/