Fulfilling a key campaign pledge made by most of the more than 80 new Republican lawmakers, the House of Representatives on Wednesday night voted 245 to 189 to repeal the year-old federal healthcare law.
Some of those freshmen lawmakers, making one of their first and likely one of the biggest votes in their two-year terms, scoffed at Democrats’ notion that the repeal legislation, passed strictly along party lines, was largely symbolic.
“Shame on us if we come here and don’t do what we said we would do,” said freshman Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich....
Neil, Jim seems to lean toward the "as seen on TV news no tax cuts for the rich" view of things. I doubt that presentation of the fact that the very rich often support Democrats will disturb the reverie.
Don't forget that the Dems get much financial & moral support from the very wealthy (e.g. Warren Buffett, George Soros, countless jet-setters), & important foundations (e.g. Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie) whose goals align closely with them. Not the sort of folks Wm. Jennings Bryan would mix with.
Neil, I was a really being touchy at all at least about Mark Twain, he was always an insightful writer even though wrong about Christianity. Never fear, if I were on a liberal site, I would be more than happy to attack liberals (actually Democrats) You must have missed my reference to a Dennis Prager commentary, [URL=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0803/prager.html]]] What makes a liberal?[/URL]
I apparently don't consider the Republican Party God's gift to America. More like a gift to the rich who want to get richer -- all too often at other people's expense. I thoroughly agree that hospital bills should be closely examined. The Medicare system has been stiffed with over charges for years, and that adds to everybody's costs (well, except Congressmen's )
Agree. I also agree with their contention that patients are too isolated from costs. It's as if it's too impolite to mention to a sick person. My favorite medical war story: after we asked for an itemized hospital bill (a good way to get "sticker shock"), we had to bug our insurance co. repeatedly before they saw that they were being overcharged. Notice, they were not the "villain" here. I do not think the faulty billing was due to greed, just carelessness - the hospical had no incentive to review & correct it the 1st time, & the insurance co. auditors were evidently asleep at the wheel. It took a lot of phone calls to get the two parties to sort it out.
Engineers call this "running open-loop." I wonder how often this pattern is repeated?
I noted the final paragraph:- "Just as the appearance of cheap, well-engineered Japanese cars disrupted Western car markets, so the rise of frugal technology could transform the market for medical devices. Western politicians need to encourage this to happen. By turning their governments into better purchasers and by eliminating the barriers that discourage the sale of cheap technology in the rich world, they could bring down the cost of health care. That should earn them the gratitude of patients, taxpayers and workers—in other words, voters."
I think they are overoptimistic about voters in US, I can hear the chorus of rabid disapproval for buying overseas products coming already. Consider the clamour for the buy American provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Here's more evidence that our medical care cost problems are not merely a matter of who funds the system: [URL=http://www.economist.com/node/17961922]]]Cutting Western medical bills[/URL] Every time your doc or hospital orders a test, the cost of medical hardware matters (the lab has to amortize its purchases). And cultural risk-aversity exacerbates the problem in America's case. We seem to be more fearful than even Europeans.
Jim Lincoln wrote: One of the best laws that they could come up with, is that that the Congress can't have any better health-care than the general public. They should a been the first bill they should have tried to pass in this area.
That would've been nice, and it would've shut-up a lot of the so-called healthcare critics; but I suspect few in the previous Congress--or even this present Congress--are either able or willing to do such a thing. It's hard to give up perks once you obtain them, and even harder when you get accustomed to them.
Jim, getting a little defensive, aren't you? Where did I single you out? You could've with greater humility replied something like "Yes, I was aware of that."
Your continual habit of singling out Repubs for ridicule & not Dems, w/o much effort in careful reasoning, exposes a glaring double-standard, & a shallow one at that. It is as if you get your political opinions from Jay Leno. And how credulous you are, to think that Congress, or any agency created by it, could make our health-care system, with its multifaceted problems, better by fiat, given its track record in other matters. That's why I said below that the problem isn't merely the "business model."
And many conservatives are not merely "traditionalists" for the sake of tradition, but believe that such legislation is not consistent with the Constitution. Maybe refuting them on this ground alone requires more effort than you can, or care to, muster.
I never remembered saying that Mark Twain was a Christian. He knew that he was writing for a Christian audience. From the end at the material that I have read, he showed that he was apparently an atheist in his later years -- at best. But then, when it comes to politicians, we notusually are talking about Christians anyway.
Everyone knows what the Republican health-care plan is: 1. Don't get sick. 2. If you do get sick, died quickly.
If the Republicans can come with some ideas that will improve the health-care law, fine. One of the best laws that they could come up with, is that that the Congress can't have any better health-care than the general public. They should a been the first bill they should have tried to pass in this area.
I have read quite a few of Mark Twain's books. "The Gilded Age" of course looked at Congress in the post Civil War era. Unfortunately, Republicans are great traditionalists and no doubt look back at that time. in fondness and as something to copy.
Bob wrote: Those who oppose the forced healthcare say it is not right to force one group to carry another's healthcare burden and they are correct. However, isn't it hypocritical to say that of healthcare and not say it of other areas such as education?
The big problem I have with the liberal dream of a hyper-interdependent society, as ours has become over the past 80 years, is the increasing social distance between giver and receiver of benefits.
Back in the 1980s I had NO idea I was wasting public money, taken from people I've never met--and may never meet, by stubbornly continuing my deteriorating college education effort some 3 years after I should've dropped out; and likely would've had I been bearing the full cost.
My dad payed for the remainder of my college costs, and tried to quell my concerns by fatalistically saying: "They (government) are going to take away from you anyway, so you might as well try to get as much from them as you can."
What a CRUMMY attitude! Is this the kind of personality that high-minded liberals of the past wanted our American people to develope as a result of all their "benevolent" social engineering?
Those who oppose the forced healthcare say it is not right to force one group to carry another's healthcare burden and they are correct. However, isn't it hypocritical to say that of healthcare and not say it of other areas such as education?
"Realizing that this is as likely as far as repeal will go, House Republicans plan to start pushing on Thursday a series of healthcare bills that will include such conservative priorities as allowing consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, limiting medical malpractice awards, and prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions"
Who would have thought that actual reform measures would be considered? Maybe there's hope yet. I can't wait for the predictable Dems to start parading their victims before the cameras, promising death and disease if we are allowed to buy across state lines, greedy lawyers are limited, or abortion funding is prohibited. They won't quite present it that way, however.
Since we're in Mark Twain mode here, these are his opinions on the Bible in "Letters from the Earth," near the end of his life: "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." And he was a Freemason.
What I find depressing is that healthcare problems go beyond what Washington does. As for example, the stupidity & arrogance of many doctors. A humble one who doesn't think he knows everything, refrains from reflexively prescribing drugs, & does not assume women are compulsive fibbers, is a rare find. As in many other fields, competence isn't implied by credentials.
It's hard to tell if Jim likes to tweek the right-wingers on this site, or get slapped down by them, or both; since it happens so often here at SA.
I'm just glad to see the Republicans not caving or compromising with the Democrats for once. If they can keep this up we just might be able to right our presently capsizing ship of state.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I think all of the years that Mark Twain was writing there was a Republican Congress in control. So, his remarks are particularly fitting.
You have to think that Jim. It fits your template. But it is about as convicting as your comments on the KJV.
Mark Twain also said:
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
You must have missed my reference to a Dennis Prager commentary, [URL=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0803/prager.html]]] What makes a liberal?[/URL]
)
