Thursday, March 4, 2010

Rock. . .meet Hard Place

It is with much fear and trepidation that I wade into the Health Care debate, but I can refrain no longer. Please, if you disagree with this post, don't take it personally, I have no personal problems with any current proponent of the Health Care Bill. I want to be friends. . . I would rather there be less party affiliation, and less partisan politics. . . .alas.

I like alot of what Pres. Obama is doing overseas. I like the "drone" war. I like our foreign relations. I like Hillary's tough stances with Iran. I like.

I don't like this bill. I don't like it at all. I think the Republicans make so much sense here. Why not have an incremental approach? Why not go step by step? The President said yesterday, "The American people deserve a vote on this bill". Mr. President, the American people are divided over this bill and have told their congressmen so. That's why it's taking so long. Why not start over. . . .why not pass some smaller stuff first? I'm fine, . . .really I am. . . don't feel like I deserve anything that hasn't happened already.

I remind you, this is coming from a guy who is still getting hosed by his insurance company for things that happened 4 years ago. I was also kicked off of an insurance plan 7 weeks before the birth of Eden, my 2nd daughter, because the insurance company wasn't making enough money and ended that particular plan.

I"m no big business tycoon. I'm getting hammered right now by insurance companies. And, I still think this bill would be a disaster.

I won't go into economics here, but that's my main objection. It's not fiscally tenable and they all know it. But, more important than that, is the back-door nature of the abortion language in the bill. Listen to Rep. Bart Stupak ( a democrat. . . .and not in name only, like a Joe Lieberman or something. . .this guy is a real democrat)

Via POLITICO Playbook:

BREAKING — Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), author of anti-abortion language in the House health-care bill, tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” that he’s willing to bring down the final bill if abortion language isn’t changed: “[T]he bill that they are using as a vehicle is the Senate bill. If you go to page 2069 through page 2078, you would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion. … [W]e’re not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language in there.” …

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Let me be clear here. If the president doesn’t change the language, if your language is not accepted, you and your 11 colleagues who voted yes the last time will vote no this time. Does that mean you’re prepared to take responsibility for bringing down this whole bill?”

STUPAK: “Yes, we’re prepared to take responsibility. I mean, I’ve been catching it ever since last fall. Let’s face it, I want to see health care. But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about.”


And to that I say. . . . "Go on Rep. Stupak. . stick to your guns. And, don't get bought out like my former state's senator. That was a sham, Ben Nelson.

Ok, let's the fireworks begin, but please read the disclaimer at the beginning of this post before commenting.


Andy said...

I think the only good thing that has come out of this entire debate is how broken the Washington system is due to a perpetual campaign cycle.

That people on both sides are always are looking at the next election more than they are at governing.

That they would rather get a good "gotcha" soundbite on the 24-hour news networks than try to compromise.

I know a thing or two about insurance because of my pops. My ideal solution has some very liberal elements and some very conservative elements that I think both sides could agree to if they woudl sit down and shake hands.

Unfortunately this debate has become less about the issues and more of a debate on who can better work the system or trash the other side on TV.

And the only ones that suffer are us.

aaron said...

Can't disagree with that.

And don't hear me claiming that the Republican's rhetoric of "slowing down" and "starting over" isn't somewhat politically motivated.

You're right, they're just as dirty as the democrats.

I just think, coincidently, in this case, they have the better wisdom in taking an incremental approach.

aaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andy said...

Yup, you nailed it.

My beef with democrats is they realize this is their "once in a generation" shot with both houses and the president and they are trying to run up the score. One giant pill, over-complicated and trying to do too much too fast. What good is a bill if it takes 3-4 years to go into effect?

They have the bully-pulpit and I agree elections have consequences (most of the things in the bill were no secret and both Obama and Clinton ran on them and got elected), but it is a case of too many cooks in the kitchen that have added way too much in there and cut too many sweetheart deals.

The Repubs -- they heart may be in the right place on some things, but their tactics are pretty reprehensible. When you have an RNC memo and interviews that say their top priority before Obama even took office was to defeat any healthcare, it is hard to take their cries for starting over as anything more than delay tactics sometimes.

Then there are the flat out lies (death panels), the lack of their own comprehensive plan and hypocrisy (calling reconciliation the nuclear option when they used it to pass both Bush tax cuts and the Contract with America).

The sad part is that the republicans and democrats agree on approximately 84% of the bill as it stands. But this is no longer about finding solutions best for the American people, it is about winning the debate.

aaron said...

And, let's be clear. It's not the Republicans who may take down this bill (they can't. . not enough votes. . . even though the American people don't want it).

it's the 11 Democrats.

so, like you say. . .why don't we just pass 84% of the bill???