Comments on: And here I thought that “The Great Netroot Betrayal” was merely a tagline.

By: GregInFla

GregInFla — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:04:15 +0000

If costs need to come down, then that money paid comes out of someone’s pocket. I have yet to hear from the UHC proponents who that they say makes too much money (besides those with (R) after their names). If you same money on admin, then that means people in the documentation side lose their jobs. If it means doctors get less money, then that means doctors move back to India, where they are de-nationalizing their healthcare system. Ever wonder why so many foreign-born doctors are here? It’s because they can make more money here. Take away the money, and they go home! And we die.

By: Next93

Next93 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:53:40 +0000

The issue with UHC has a lot more to do with rationing of health care than in the quality of care available.

Even the Left agrees that we have excellent quality of care in this country. The claim that the system is “broken” stems from the fact that it’s rationed to those people who can afford health insurance or have money coming out the wazoo and can simply write a check. For the most part, this means that health care goes primarily to the families of people who’ve made the kind of life decisions that lead to a full-time job.

What the Left wants to see is a “fair distribution”, which in thier minds means that rationing is done by government beaurocrats on the basis of an arcane set of rules (that the left gets to control) rather than on income or wealth.

This fits in nicely with the Leftist tennet that only charities (non-religious) and government agencies have any real moral authority; everything else is tainted by the profit motive. I know it sounds stupid to Red State readers, but somehow the granting of a GS rating confers the kind of moral authority needed to determine who “deserves” medical treatment and who doesn’t.

I’ve never been very cleron the idea of why expecting someone to hold down a full-time job is too much to ask in return for access to the finest medical system in the world, or how a government agency is going to be able to determine a “fair” distribution of medical treatment. But then again, I’m so niave that I haven’t been able to figure out how our consitution grants anyone a “right” to the product of someone else’s labor. Near as I’ve been able to figure out, it’s SUPPOSED to guarantee exactly the opposite…

By: Achance

Achance — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:14:17 +0000

and enhanced unemployment benefits will be the hook. Neither the Big 3 nor the UAW can long survive with the retiree healthcare costs they’ve built up. The UAW run plan was just a scam to bridge them to the brave new world of Democrat control. A Democrat government can’t allow the big three to use bankruptcy to get out of their labor agreements and pitch the costs to the government that way. They’re going to need a “comprehensive solution.”

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:11:23 +0000

comments.

Not real sure what happened.

Regards

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:10:00 +0000

I wish I thought you were right, but commonsense and logic do not come into play with this bunch.

I do agree with your analysis of the result of UHC.

Just as with Hillary, Universal Health Care, or (plug in any socialist program here), didn’t work because the “right” people weren’t in charge.

They truly believe they are smarter than God.

If UHC is ever instituted, we need to start a death counter, reporting all the deaths due to UHC from waiting 6 months for heart surgery, and the like.

Thank you for your service to country! USNJim

Regards

By: tsquare

tsquare — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:00:37 +0000

Once again… couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of folks.

Second… we must fight them… every step of the way.

By: zuiko

zuiko — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:48:46 +0000

Is pretty flexible… it is whatever Obama says it is. It doesn’t have to *actually* be universal to count as universal health care. It just has to be enacted by the Democrats. That is the part that makes it universal.

By: USNJIMRET

USNJIMRET — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:30:05 +0000

finally gets a chance to look at the likely consequences of forcing UHC on the country, he’ll back away from it so fast it’ll look like he never uttered a word on it.
Much as the Dem’s don’t favor the idea of being known as the Party that brought the Great American Brownout, Mr Obama doesn’t want to be known as the President who condemned millions of Americans to third world quality Health Care.
Oh, perhaps I should explain my thinking on that last part…..
It’s really simple.
Whatever Health Care is currently available to those claimed 47 million who don’t have it now (yeah, I know, it’s a bogus number. But the left has been screaming it for so long that it has become the Big Lie Truth.), is whatever is left over after the rest of the Nation WITH Health Insurance, gets done using insurance covered services.
Doing whatever it is that Mr Obama intends to do to suddenly provide some kind of Health Care insurance for those 47 million, WON’T INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MEDICAL PROVIDERS ONE BIT!!!
Health Care Insurance, or whatever it’s going to be called, doesn’t increase the number of Doctors, Hospitals, or anything else associated with providing health care.
It will only increase the number of people who seek Health Care.
Which is going to so over burden the existing system even more, that one has to wonder why anyone would even consider becoming a Medical Professional!!
And it doesn’t matter a bit how much money Mr Obama and the Liberals decide to spend. It takes years to manufacture a Doctor, build a hospital, etc.
All the problems that other countries with Socialized Medicine have faced, and are facing today, will be even worse in the USA. Particularly when one considers that all the politicians can really do…..is promise to ‘fix’ it.
Promise to ‘fix’ a system that they put in place, knowing in advance that it would require repair?
Sound familiar?
Sound a bit like every other Government “Managed” social program of the last 50 years? Can you say Social Security? Medicare? Fannie and Freddie?
And is anyone truly believing that it won’t be just as screwed up? Just as burdened by cost over runs, fraud and bureaucracy?
Really?

By: Brian Hibbert

Brian Hibbert — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:03:35 +0000

They seem to believe that we can live in a utopian society and have the government take care of all problems if only us evil conservatives and the truely evil corporations would get out of the way.

When their plans fail they won’t blame the plans. It will be the fault of the corruption of left by the capitalists. Or that the “rich” weren’t taxed enough to make the plan work. Or any number of other deflections of guilt.

By: ojintoad

ojintoad — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:01:22 +0000

if you go to moveon.org you’ll see they phrase it ‘building a green economy and stopping climate change’ as one goal. Not sure when you quoted it but the politico article has fixed it as well, notice the slash: “What they chose: universal health care; economic recovery and job creation; building a green economy/stopping climate change; and end the war in Iraq.”

Wish I could preview my post, sigh.

By: chemjeff

chemjeff — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:20:25 +0000

The fact that the nutroots chose this to be #1 should give us a clue as to how hard they intend to fight for it this time around. We have to get ready.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:45:07 +0000

Only because he will constantly remind the rest of the democrats that they aren’t as progressive as promised.