Because in the US system it only takes one person to block a bill. To unblock it takes a supermajority.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why be against universal healthcare?
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
IIRC, I think that was because the Republicans made it clear they'd fillibuster any single-payer proposal so it would die on the order paper, and to stop a fillibuster, it would've needed two-thirds support, not just a simple majority.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
You changed the subject. For the sake of argument, let me say that I concede you are correct in your criticism of the Dems. I am totally exasperated at how they handled health care reform and how the "blue dogs" opposed even a public option. Dems in Congress were clearly worried, in part, about what would happen in the mid-term elections of 2010. History shows they were correct to be worried. But they were incorrect in thinking that galvanized conservative voters in their home districts would reward compromise, or could be reasoned with in any way. Big miscalculation. They should have just pushed through a genuine "socialist" health insurance system and the electoral consequences would have been no worse, if not better (not to mention a better system).
Now, I've conceded that you are correct about this new point you raised. So I think in fairness, you should comment on the original point I raised:
Rick said:
Did I or did I not demonstrate to your satisfaction that it is a misinformed attitude?Spinkles said:
Again, for your reference:
Isn't that exactly what you were talking about? "We can't afford to pay for expensive medical care forever for all these old people ..." etc.? Okay. The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit. Check. Reduces Medicare spending. Check. Punishes expensive "Cadillac" plans. Check. No new government-run insurance program. Check. Inter-state exchanges where consumers shop for insurance plans provided by private companies competing for their business. Check. Let the free market work. Are there any reasonable conservatives who are capable of nuanced views out there, who are willing to concede they like SOME if not all provisions of the ACA? What more do you want?Spinks said:
When I say Tea Party types are living in "la la land" I don't say that as a jab. I don't normally level such charges at people simply because they disagree with my opinion, especially when my own parents (bless them) fall into this category. In this case, it's just undeniably the truth. I literally cannot even convince my poor mother that the Affordable Care Act did not create a new, govt. run insurance program called "Obamacare", it just regulates existing private insurance and existing govt. insurance (Medicare, Medicaid). Such is the effect of her constantly watching Fox News.
Last edited:
Thanks Spinks, you really manned up with your post. I know the Republicans really suck on this issue, WE really should just expand medicare and call it a day. :sorry1:
I have alot of respect for you not playing games with what really happened. Yes the Republicans suck, but the Democrats had a chance to really do something and failed. :yes:
I have alot of respect for you not playing games with what really happened. Yes the Republicans suck, but the Democrats had a chance to really do something and failed. :yes:
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Im pretty sure they had a supermajority...
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
A supermajority can overrule a filibuster.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
According to Fox News, the Democrats effectively did not have a supermajority in the Senate in 2009. This was due to the fact that two Senators who caucased with Dems were actually independents, and Joe Lieberman was downright conservative. Another two Dem Senators were stricken with illness and rarely present. And then there were several Senators who were Dems but well-known to not vote with the party in lockstep. (Several sources agree on this but I figured I might as well cite Fox News so there can't be any accusations of liberal bias.)
Last edited:
If several sources agree with Fox, then it can be pretty reliably determined that there's truth to it.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
There is more than one conservative source in the conservative bubble, Riverwolf.
However, it is clear that liberals and conservatives understand the politics at work here. Republicans do tend to vote in lockstep, because there are worse consequences for Republicans than for Democrats, when they buck the power players in their party. What happened on ACA was a president who believed compromise was necessary, an opposition that believed refusal to compromise was necessary, and a handful of Democrats in the Senate who could dictate the terms of the bill--backed by the full power of the Republican minority. So people like Max Baucus, who considered the health insurance industry his most important constituent, really dictated the terms of the agreement. Obama knew the situation well enough that he felt it necessary to abandon the public option behind closed doors, even as he was touting it in public. That took a lot of pressure off of Baucus, and it probably gave us a worse bill than we could have gotten. Nevertheless, despite his poor performance in the game of political maneuvering, Obama did leave us in a better situation than if we had gotten no health care reform at all. Now we have a lot of work to do in order to reduce the flaws and gotcha traps that insurance industry lobbyists built into the law.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
The reason so many Americans claim to be against universal healthcare is because the right wing immediately conjured up the bogeyman of Communism into the minds of the less intelligent American public when it was suggested. Most of these people who are so vocal about "Obamacare" being an abomination to America would run for their guns if their Medicare was taken away...
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Yes and, even more ironically, the actor Ronald Reagan conjured up the same bogeyman in order to oppose adoption of Medicare in the first place!
[youtube]AYrlDlrLDSQ[/youtube]
Ronald Reagan speaks out on Socialized Medicine - Audio - YouTube
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Thanks. I try to give credit where credit is due, and your criticism of the Dems does have merit.
But honestly I am still scratching my head. Of course I agree with you that we should just expand Medicare and call it a day. But I don't understand why you would say such a thing. On the issue of health care, aren't your priorities (1) to reduce govt. spending on medical care for the elderly, and (2) reduce the deficit? That's the impression I get from your posts, is that inaccurate?
Yes, this is an accurate assessment of my position. I am fundamentally against socialised medicine for everyone, BUT..... If we are going to go that route, we should not enrich insurance companies. I hate them almost as much as big government.
The affordable healthcare act is a marriage of the IRS and the insurance companies and will be a cluster truck. It is just more redundancy in our government and basically a blank check for insurance companies to rape us.
Where will the competition be when you require everyone to purchase insurance?
The prices will work about as well as gasoline prices.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Did you read what I said about the ACA? We have not gone "that route". Instead we essentially adopted your position. If you don't like the results and you think socialized medical insurance would be a better route, welcome to Team Liberal.
Good points, Rick, but there are other universal coverage options that aren't socialised. Real socialised medicine is not that common a system. Plenty of other countries use a Bismark model of private but non-profit insurance companies. We used to do something similar, as a matter of fact, before healthcare became commodified.Yes, this is an accurate assessment of my position. I am fundamentally against socialised medicine for everyone, BUT..... If we are going to go that route, we should not enrich insurance companies. I hate them almost as much as big government.
The affordable healthcare act is a marriage of the IRS and the insurance companies and will be a cluster truck. It is just more redundancy in our government and basically a blank check for insurance companies to rape us.
Where will the competition be when you require everyone to purchase insurance?
The prices will work about as well as gasoline prices.
Yes, this is an accurate assessment of my position. I am fundamentally against socialised medicine for everyone, BUT..... If we are going to go that route, we should not enrich insurance companies. I hate them almost as much as big government.
The affordable healthcare act is a marriage of the IRS and the insurance companies and will be a cluster truck. It is just more redundancy in our government and basically a blank check for insurance companies to rape us.
Where will the competition be when you require everyone to purchase insurance?
The prices will work about as well as gasoline prices.
Something just occurred to me: this system will be a lot like mandatory auto insurance: everyone's required to get insurance from a private insurer. Up here, the government regulates auto insurance prices to make sure companies don't take advantage of the market distortion you describe; do they have something similar in the states with mandatory auto insurance?
If they haven't instituted some sort of price control as part of the ACA, then I agree that the issues you describe will probably be a problem.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I am (and most people that are for socialized medicine) against several parts of the ACA but rather than throw it out and start over (most likely never having it pass) but just amend the law we already have in place.
A decent government insurance that is cheap with the option to have a more expensive "better" plan.
A decent government insurance that is cheap with the option to have a more expensive "better" plan.
Oh it will be a problem. Yes we have mandatory car insurance and the rates are not regulated. The thing is, I don't have to drive a car and could cancel my car insurance if I wanted to. You have to turn in your license plates however or you will run into trouble.
Yeah, there's no law preventing someone from getting rid of their car, but most places in the US, it's pretty difficult to get by without one, so the demand for auto insurance is pretty inelastic... and probably akin to the sort of competition in health insurance that comes from the fact that people are free to move away to other countries outside the reach of American insurers.