(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Interesting. So when W got into office based on a court decision after losing the popular vote and shifted at least as hard to to right as Obama is to the left (I'd argue much harder than Obama, but don't want to debate that here) that was OK, but when the Dems win in a landslide, it's not OK to implement a major cornerstone of their platform? And, yes it WAS a major cornerstone of his campaign.
Oh but wait, I see, the election shouldn’t count because us Obama supporters are just too stupid and ignorant to know what we actually voted for. We should let Republicans determine what we actually voted on. And then you guys complain about the tone of these discussions. Whatever.
In any case, the Dems have spent the last several months negotiating with Grassley, et al. only to have Grassley go out and claim Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma and then admit that he won’t vote for the bill *even if they give him all the concessions he’s asking for*. You can’t complain about lack of compromise when the R’s have determined that they will vote “No” no matter what. They will probably kill the public option and we’ll have modest health insurance reform, which will help some people but not get at the core problems.
You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

I could take issue with any number of comments in your first three paragraphs, but that would lead down any number of rabbit trails so I won't except to say (1) that I do not concede the truth of anything you say in those paragraphs, and (2) that you have to apply whatever standard with equal vigor both ways, so either what the democrats did when Bush was in the white house was wrong, or what the republicans are doing now is okay. I happen to believe that both were okay, but you can go whichever way you want.

As for the anecdotal stories, you can find just as many just as bad about the UK and Canadian systems. I've never heard many bad stories about France, but I'm sure there are some.

At the end of the day, either you throw so many resources at health care that nobody ever goes wanting (and I think it's clear that we can't afford that), or you need some means to allocate scarce resources among those in need. There are basically two allocation methods--you go first if you pay more, or you go first based on some scheme established by fiat. Where the second is used, there has to be a "death panel" somewhere to make the decisions. If you know another way, then out with it, but so far I've not heard one.

Given a choice between pay-go or a death panel, I choose pay-go. At least with pay-go I can make the decision to forego something else to get health care, and when the actual user is on the hook for part of the cost, more effective control over costs results. I simply think pay-go is the fairer and more democratic alternative, given those two to choose from.