namelessfly wrote:I am very much aware that private insurers effectively ration healthcare by refusing to cover some treatments or limiting compensation to doctors. However; the degree of limitation varies with insurer.
Which would matter more if you could freely choose insurer. As it is, most Americans, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, can only afford/receive good insurance through their employers, which means they have little choice in the terms.
However; the primary difference between the US healthcare system which Obamacare is destroying and a UHC is that Americans have the freedom to find an alternative health insurance provider or paying out of pocket. We are justifiably afraid of loosing this freedom.
Are you aware that in most UHC countries I know of, you still have the option of paying a private phsyician hospital or getting supplementary private insurance if you're not happy with the UHC coverage? At least here in Israel, it's fairly cheap too (certainly compared to prices I've seen for insurance in the US).
Of course this government shutdown might result in another scandal that occurred during the shutdown when President Clinton was receiving oral sex from Monica Lwinsky in the oval office. About the only difference that I would expect is that it would be a male intern and President Obama would be on his knees.
Do you realize how petty (not to mention bitter) this makes you sound?
biochem wrote:It depends on what the Democrats care about the most the USA or political power.
That goes equally for the Republicans, given that it seems that a lot of this is driven by a determination to obstruct anything the Obama Administration does, as well as moderate Republicans' fears of facing Tea Party primary challenges.
Unlike governmental systems based on a parliamentary system, the system in the USA is designed to be divided to provide checks and balances. As pokermind stated earlier the minority party usually controls 1 of the 3 parts and thus major legislation tends to be a centrist compromise. In this case it was 100% Democratic with 0% Republican input, so it's not surprising that the Republicans hate it.
As I recall the ACA bill was significantly modified from its original form to address Republican objections.
And relying on compromise is problematic in a highly polarized political environment.
In the current case the Republicans are proposing compromises. The Democrats are rejecting the compromises out of hand. You may not like the Republican proposals but the proper thing to do in the American system is not to reject them but to use them as starting points to negotiate a centrist compromise.
In negotiations, you're generally expected to offer something of roughy equal value to what you want. In this case, the Republicans tried to essentially extort the Democrats to make major concessions (and pay a considerable amount of politcal capital, especially as the ACA exchanges opened this week) in return for a minor gain, and then probably having to do this all over again in a few months (at which point the Republicans could and probably would pull the shutdown card
again, and then later again). A threat of a government shutdown should be something you save for extreme cases, which this isn't. My poisition might be different if the Republicans were offering a major concession of their own in return, but they didn't do that.
So yes, I consider it perfectly justified for the Democrats to call the Republicans' bluff - if the latter want to use a government shutdown to force political concessions, let them pay the price for it.
Also, given the degree of obstructioning the Republican legislators have engaged in in the last few years and various forms of political hardball, some of which have backfired hilariously (such as Mitch McConnell winding up filibustering his own bill last year), I think the Democrats aren't unreasonable in not assuming good faith by the Republicans.
Instead the Democrats seem intend on using the situation to score political points with the help of a compliant media (which votes 80-90% Democrat).
Not directly related, but it's amusing how both sides (and this doesn't only apply to American politics, I've seen the same phenomenon is the Israel-Arab conflict) is convinced that the media is firmly in the other side's camp
I'll agree with fly and pokermind on this one. It is a MESS! There are 1000s of pages of new regulations, some of which contradict others. And not 1 person in congress in either party read the thing in its entirety before voting on it! It is full of errors and bugs which we will be years straightening out.
Well, I'm not particularly defending Obamacare specifically, I don't know many of the details and some of what I do know seems a mess, as you say. Of course, the question needs to be asked if a more "traditional" UHC plan could be passed in the current American political system.
Also, to be blunt (honest question here) - how much of the unreadinesss is due to Republicans' numerous (failed) attempts to stop/repeal the bill? If the answer is "a significant amount", why do you think the Democrats should agree to yet another delay?
