Friday, March 19, 2010

Health Care Vote Threatens Political Tsunami

When the present health care battle comes to its untimely conclusion this week in Congress the ongoing tug-of-war between angry right wing Republicans and disheartened left wing Democrats will not only go on unabated – whichever way the vote goes -- but threatens a political tsunami that could spell disaster for President Barack Obama throughout his term of office.
If the vote goes President Obama’s way Democrats across the nation will celebrate a hard-fought victory while Republican outrage will insure the most acrimonious congressional campaign in many decades throughout this summer and fall. Should congress fail to approve the health care plan, jubilant Republicans will declare Obama a failed president and redouble their efforts to prevent him and the majority Democrats from achieving any success on any of their proposals.
Wise Republicans understand, however, that health care reform has already failed. True reform, which would create a universal single-payer health care system that covers everyone in America, has been unceremoniously defeated. The so-called public option also has gone by the boards.
Whichever way the vote goes, insurance companies and health care corporations are the big winners. The capitalist system prevails. Private insurers not only maintain their monopoly over healthcare but get a bigger piece of the pie – some 30,000,000 new customers with little or no requirements to keep premiums at reasonable rates. Millions of additional taxpayer and premium dollars will go to private corporations – or should I say “persons” considering the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (Aren’t “persons” supposed to have a “birth certificate?”)
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat with strong health care credentials, and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader have vigorously criticized the health care bill, but the Ohio congressman has nevertheless announced he will vote for the bill although it’s not the bill he wanted. Nader remains adamantly opposed to it. A vote is expected on the bill on Sunday.
President Obama points out that the bill includes a provision that would ban insurers from denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. It also would prevent insurers from denying coverage or impose limits on care when a person becomes ill. It would require free preventive care and allow children to remain on their parents’ health plan until the age of 26.

“The insurance industry would run amok" if the vote fails, Obama said.

So would the Republican opposition to the president and his efforts to bring back American jobs and reinvigorate the economy.


Tony said...

England provides good or excellent care for everybody at low cost, that care is good and waiting times are not generally all that long, and that the United States, being the most powerful nation in the world should offer universal health care for all its people.

William F. Torpey said...

Thanks for commenting, Tony. With luck, someday soon the United States will catch up with England and the rest of the world.

Dick said...

Tony and Bill, I fear for our country when so many think like you two do. While your ideal of "universal" healthcare is worthy the notion that any government should impose this on a free people is frightening. The notion that any govenerment entity is capable of providing such a thing over the long term is sadly misguided. Is not such an endeavor simply an ever expanding bureaucracy that becomes "to big to fail"? Of course it is. Failure is a natural and necessary part of the business cycle, just as death is the final act of life. Sad that "sturdy' Torpeys would hold such thoughts. I leave you with this:

" You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You Cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get's the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is surely the end of any nation's future." Dr. Adrian Rogers

William F. Torpey said...

You live in a different world than I, Dick. Government isn't taking anything from anybody, and nobody I know thinks they don't have to work because somebody else will take care of them. That's so far from reality that it's ludicrous. Why aren't you concerned about the "wealthy" who obtain millions, and even billions, of dollars not by working, but by creating false financial instruments such as hedge funds to pull money of our common economy and directly into their own pockets. That's far worse than government taking money from taxes to provide for the "general welfare."