Comments on: Compromise To Remain On The Path To Health Care Reform http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182 Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:46:53 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: The Danger of Killing Health Care Reform From The Left - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182&cpage=1#comment-218373 The Danger of Killing Health Care Reform From The Left - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:16:19 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182#comment-218373 [...] not include  a public option. An example of this was seen yesterday when they attacked an extremely sensible statement from Rahm Emanuel who argued that “The goal is non-negotiable; the path is.” I have used the Clinton’s [...] [...] not include  a public option. An example of this was seen yesterday when they attacked an extremely sensible statement from Rahm Emanuel who argued that “The goal is non-negotiable; the path is.” I have used the Clinton’s [...]

]]> By: - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182&cpage=1#comment-218340 - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:10:29 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182#comment-218340 [...] willing to compromise on specifics of health care legislation as long as the key goals are met  (which I discussed earlier). Wilkinson wrote: Bush couldn’t reform Social Security because his plan was unpopular. Obama [...] [...] willing to compromise on specifics of health care legislation as long as the key goals are met  (which I discussed earlier). Wilkinson wrote: Bush couldn’t reform Social Security because his plan was unpopular. Obama [...]

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182&cpage=1#comment-218336 Ron Chusid Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:42:47 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182#comment-218336 <p>"Your insinuating that Democrats might vote against it if it isn’t exactly what they want."</p> <p>I'm doing more than insinuating. I linked to a previous post which showed some Democrats are threatening to vote against the plan if they don't get exactly what they want.</p> <p>If they have the votes to get what they want there is no problem. However if they don't we should not abandon efforts at health care reform because of a few specific details.</p> <p>Back in 1992 Hillary Clinton's strategy was to either have her plan or no plan. We wound up with nothing as a result. It is far better to pass a plan which places restriction on insurance companies to attempt to prevent them from denying coverage than to have no bill at all because it is not seen as perfect.</p> “Your insinuating that Democrats might vote against it if it isn’t exactly what they want.”

I’m doing more than insinuating. I linked to a previous post which showed some Democrats are threatening to vote against the plan if they don’t get exactly what they want.

If they have the votes to get what they want there is no problem. However if they don’t we should not abandon efforts at health care reform because of a few specific details.

Back in 1992 Hillary Clinton’s strategy was to either have her plan or no plan. We wound up with nothing as a result. It is far better to pass a plan which places restriction on insurance companies to attempt to prevent them from denying coverage than to have no bill at all because it is not seen as perfect.

]]> By: bruno http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182&cpage=1#comment-218334 bruno Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:29:05 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182#comment-218334 I'm surprised you're even considering what Rahm is proposing.  Your insinuating that Democrats might vote against it if it isn't exactly what they want. By all means.  I'd rather have them vote against it and fail, than give in - once again - to moronic Republicans who have already said that they will NOT vote for anything that has a public option or costs more than 1 trillion. Democrats need to take some cues from the weaselly Republicans.  Run the numbers on 5 to 7 years - just like the Bush Administration did to ram their tax cuts through.  And include an option to phase out the public plan if it seems to not be working. The Republicans were banking on the fact that the estate taxes were going to be renewed instead of allowed to expire.  Why not do the same thing now?  Tell the morons that there is an expiration date on the public plan After 10 years of having a public plan, not one voter will allow their moron Republican congressman to vote against making it permanent. Let them deal with that issue.   THAT is compromise NOT taking it off the table. I’m surprised you’re even considering what Rahm is proposing.  Your insinuating that Democrats might vote against it if it isn’t exactly what they want.
By all means.  I’d rather have them vote against it and fail, than give in – once again – to moronic Republicans who have already said that they will NOT vote for anything that has a public option or costs more than 1 trillion.
Democrats need to take some cues from the weaselly Republicans.  Run the numbers on 5 to 7 years – just like the Bush Administration did to ram their tax cuts through.  And include an option to phase out the public plan if it seems to not be working.
The Republicans were banking on the fact that the estate taxes were going to be renewed instead of allowed to expire.  Why not do the same thing now?  Tell the morons that there is an expiration date on the public plan
After 10 years of having a public plan, not one voter will allow their moron Republican congressman to vote against making it permanent.
Let them deal with that issue.
 
THAT is compromise NOT taking it off the table.

]]> By: Nance Confer http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182&cpage=1#comment-218331 Nance Confer Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:02:56 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9182#comment-218331 I'm not denied coverage now. I can't afford coverage. And then, if I sold the house and kids and paid for coverage, then I'd be denied coverage. After the fact of the normal consequence of living -- needing healthcare. Why would we expect the insurance companies to do anything but continue to play this game? Why would we trust them? Nance I’m not denied coverage now. I can’t afford coverage. And then, if I sold the house and kids and paid for coverage, then I’d be denied coverage. After the fact of the normal consequence of living — needing healthcare.
Why would we expect the insurance companies to do anything but continue to play this game? Why would we trust them?
Nance

]]>