************************
I want the Canadian healthcare system, with one proviso. I want Canada to run it.
After last week’s vote in the House of Representatives, where the key issue in the health reform debate turned out to be coverage for abortion, it now seems that if Congress has its way, politics will infiltrate every corner of the healthcare system. What services are covered, who can provide them, even how they are provided – the opportunities for meddling are endless.
The problem is not with the bold ideas that underlay the health reform proposals. The problem is with our political system. Party primaries in Gerrymandered Congressional Districts send political extremists from both ends of the spectrum to Washington, where they think that the issue of abortion rights is important enough to hold hostage an overhaul of a $2 trillion system. In a parliamentary system, the parties need to govern from the middle. The middle of the House of Representatives is an empty aisle. We can only hope that the Senate keeps its sanity.
I remember one of the provisions of Clinton’s healthcare reform proposal that scared me stiff. Clinton proposed his own version of the health insurance exchange in which consumers could choose from approved insurance plans. The catch was that local appointed boards would be charged with granting approval. So if you lived in Chicago, you would get to choose from insurers approved by the Mayor, the Governor, and the Cook County Board President. I can see it now – the Combine Insurance Company. And I can see even worse once Congress decides that since it is spending “its own” money on healthcare, it deserves to call the shots.
I want to thank the House of Representatives for shaking me out of my doldrums. I am now convinced about the Canadian system. If we tried it here, it would be a catastrophe.
************************************
I have to agree. The massive issue with Washington these days is that we are electing fringe candidates that do what is best for their party as opposed to compromise solutions that are good for the country...
I, like many other independents, support Obama for the simple reason that he campaigned on the promise to bring more bi-partisanship to the capital. So far I have been very discouraged by 2 recent events that leave little hope for the future of our government:
1. Nancy Pelosi (I am watching you!) - You are the worst possible example of bi-partisanship. If the parties in power do their best to push policy to the extreme views of their party (I am looking at you too Bush.) than we will continue to have cycle after cycle of frustration that leads to one party being ousted in favor of another, who sadly continues the process only to be ousted again
2. Sarah Palin's (and other right-wing nut jobs) meddling in the NY district 23 congressional race. The local Republican party selected out their nominee, only to have the "pure" wing of the Republican party deem the candidate too liberal and all support a more conservative candidate, splitting the vote and giving the Democrates a house seat that has been in Republican control for over 100 years. Really? Right now with the critical votes on health care reform etc. you would think the party would be a little smarter. Also - note to Republicans: if you are unwilling to allow multiple views into your party (read: independents) than YOU WILL FAIL. It is mathematically impossible to win with 25% of the vote. I keep hearing the "Reagan won by being more conservative, not less" dogma. While that is true, Reagan's positions and the those of the Republican party in the early 1980's would be considered far too liberal by the Sarah Palin lunatic wing of the Republican party.
Bonus example #3. Governor McDonnell's win in Virginia should be the clear example to both parties. Whoever will appeal to the values that most of America supports (e.g. moderation, progress without extremism, fiscal conservatism, etc.) will win. Plain and simple. The fact that McDonnell won in Northern Virginia (which is heavily democratic) by a 14 point margin where Barak Obama won so convincingly just 1 year earlier was that he DID NOT chase the far right agenda. Even though his opponent in a desperation move tried to cast him as one (thanks to a very old thesis that was not too shocking for the time it was published) because he focused on ISSUES like traffic, taxes, and schools he won. Plain and simple. Democrats, Republicans - you are both idiots. The Republicans have around 25% of the country that will vote for them no matter what, the Dems have about 36% (more poor people that need handouts). Neither number gets you to 50%. The rest of the country is sitting in the middle and is not loyal to either party and just wants to see Washington get something done without simply throwing money at the problem. For my ultra-conservative friends, that means doing something about health care and not sitting on their hands for 20 years (Reagan, Bush, Bush) and for my Liberal friends (I think I have at least 2) that means you can't just throw money at problems and certainly not sign up generations of taxpayers for proposals that aren't supported by the majority.
Lots of fun.
After last week’s vote in the House of Representatives, where the key issue in the health reform debate turned out to be coverage for abortion, it now seems that if Congress has its way, politics will infiltrate every corner of the healthcare system. What services are covered, who can provide them, even how they are provided – the opportunities for meddling are endless.
The problem is not with the bold ideas that underlay the health reform proposals. The problem is with our political system. Party primaries in Gerrymandered Congressional Districts send political extremists from both ends of the spectrum to Washington, where they think that the issue of abortion rights is important enough to hold hostage an overhaul of a $2 trillion system. In a parliamentary system, the parties need to govern from the middle. The middle of the House of Representatives is an empty aisle. We can only hope that the Senate keeps its sanity.
I remember one of the provisions of Clinton’s healthcare reform proposal that scared me stiff. Clinton proposed his own version of the health insurance exchange in which consumers could choose from approved insurance plans. The catch was that local appointed boards would be charged with granting approval. So if you lived in Chicago, you would get to choose from insurers approved by the Mayor, the Governor, and the Cook County Board President. I can see it now – the Combine Insurance Company. And I can see even worse once Congress decides that since it is spending “its own” money on healthcare, it deserves to call the shots.
I want to thank the House of Representatives for shaking me out of my doldrums. I am now convinced about the Canadian system. If we tried it here, it would be a catastrophe.
************************************
I have to agree. The massive issue with Washington these days is that we are electing fringe candidates that do what is best for their party as opposed to compromise solutions that are good for the country...
I, like many other independents, support Obama for the simple reason that he campaigned on the promise to bring more bi-partisanship to the capital. So far I have been very discouraged by 2 recent events that leave little hope for the future of our government:
1. Nancy Pelosi (I am watching you!) - You are the worst possible example of bi-partisanship. If the parties in power do their best to push policy to the extreme views of their party (I am looking at you too Bush.) than we will continue to have cycle after cycle of frustration that leads to one party being ousted in favor of another, who sadly continues the process only to be ousted again
2. Sarah Palin's (and other right-wing nut jobs) meddling in the NY district 23 congressional race. The local Republican party selected out their nominee, only to have the "pure" wing of the Republican party deem the candidate too liberal and all support a more conservative candidate, splitting the vote and giving the Democrates a house seat that has been in Republican control for over 100 years. Really? Right now with the critical votes on health care reform etc. you would think the party would be a little smarter. Also - note to Republicans: if you are unwilling to allow multiple views into your party (read: independents) than YOU WILL FAIL. It is mathematically impossible to win with 25% of the vote. I keep hearing the "Reagan won by being more conservative, not less" dogma. While that is true, Reagan's positions and the those of the Republican party in the early 1980's would be considered far too liberal by the Sarah Palin lunatic wing of the Republican party.
Bonus example #3. Governor McDonnell's win in Virginia should be the clear example to both parties. Whoever will appeal to the values that most of America supports (e.g. moderation, progress without extremism, fiscal conservatism, etc.) will win. Plain and simple. The fact that McDonnell won in Northern Virginia (which is heavily democratic) by a 14 point margin where Barak Obama won so convincingly just 1 year earlier was that he DID NOT chase the far right agenda. Even though his opponent in a desperation move tried to cast him as one (thanks to a very old thesis that was not too shocking for the time it was published) because he focused on ISSUES like traffic, taxes, and schools he won. Plain and simple. Democrats, Republicans - you are both idiots. The Republicans have around 25% of the country that will vote for them no matter what, the Dems have about 36% (more poor people that need handouts). Neither number gets you to 50%. The rest of the country is sitting in the middle and is not loyal to either party and just wants to see Washington get something done without simply throwing money at the problem. For my ultra-conservative friends, that means doing something about health care and not sitting on their hands for 20 years (Reagan, Bush, Bush) and for my Liberal friends (I think I have at least 2) that means you can't just throw money at problems and certainly not sign up generations of taxpayers for proposals that aren't supported by the majority.
Lots of fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment