The President's aides are hinting that Mr. Obama may want to do another primetime address on healthcare
Heathcare is not a popularity contest. It is not an excuse to give a nice teleprompter speech to see if you can "shine" some people on with your campaign personality saying all the things that everyone agrees on but failing to shed any light on all the things we don't agree on.
Why was the President traveling around doing townhalls answering questions if he doesn't have a bill and neither does congress?...how is he answering questions? He can't assure anyone of anything.
Why doesn't the president put his money where is mouth is and have open door meetings with the committees of congress with cameras in the room where they hash out healthcare. (Obama criticized Hillary for having closed door meetings)
I'd love to see the President, the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans marking up the bill. Who wouldn't love to see line by line, section by section discussion of this healthcare bill? ....the amendments explained and why we need them...and the legislators being held responsible for their legislation.
oh and we need the CBO in there. Saying "Nope. Still increases the deficit." "Nope. Millions of uninsured still not covered."
Bottom line. The American people are reading the bills in the House and Senate and we aren't going to be "shined on" anymore. The teleprompter won't work. We don't want higher taxes or premiums. We don't want higher deficits. We don't want less access to care or changes in our healthcare plans. We don't want long lines, long waits or rationed care.
We don't need reform for the sake of reform. We need to fix what's wrong - not mess up what's right.
We need to Kill the Bill and Start Over. I agree with the following article:
Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough
Why not start with increasing competition by opening competition across states?
Why not address tort reform?
Why not start with banning denial of coverage for preconditions?
Heathcare is not a popularity contest. It is not an excuse to give a nice teleprompter speech to see if you can "shine" some people on with your campaign personality saying all the things that everyone agrees on but failing to shed any light on all the things we don't agree on.
Why was the President traveling around doing townhalls answering questions if he doesn't have a bill and neither does congress?...how is he answering questions? He can't assure anyone of anything.
Why doesn't the president put his money where is mouth is and have open door meetings with the committees of congress with cameras in the room where they hash out healthcare. (Obama criticized Hillary for having closed door meetings)
I'd love to see the President, the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans marking up the bill. Who wouldn't love to see line by line, section by section discussion of this healthcare bill? ....the amendments explained and why we need them...and the legislators being held responsible for their legislation.
oh and we need the CBO in there. Saying "Nope. Still increases the deficit." "Nope. Millions of uninsured still not covered."
Bottom line. The American people are reading the bills in the House and Senate and we aren't going to be "shined on" anymore. The teleprompter won't work. We don't want higher taxes or premiums. We don't want higher deficits. We don't want less access to care or changes in our healthcare plans. We don't want long lines, long waits or rationed care.
We don't need reform for the sake of reform. We need to fix what's wrong - not mess up what's right.
We need to Kill the Bill and Start Over. I agree with the following article:
Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough
Even if the public option is excised, the healthcare bill under consideration by Congress would still impose a heavy blanket of federal regulation on every aspect of insurance and healthcare itself.
The government would determine what interventions work and are included in plans coverage. This would include a judgment on what is cost effectivedoes a treatment justify its cost? The government would put a monetary value on the number of years a patients life is extended or improved. Would everyones life be valued the same?
The government would mandate enrollment practices; regulate how premiums are determined; specify what co-payments can be collected; and dictate how much of the premium would have to be paid out for claims. The government would switch money back and forth among plans (risk adjustment) to compensate plans that cover a larger share of sick people.
It would impose uniform marketing standards on insurance plans and regulate how plan documents are written to ensure that they use plain language. Although the evolving legislation manifestly fails this test itself, it requires insurers to use language that is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing. To help the hapless insurers in this task, the newly created health choices commissioner would develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.
The newly created health choices commissioner would take bids from plans, negotiate with them, and enter into contracts with selected plans. This opens the way for undefined and unchecked informal regulation of plans, including, for instance, the number, type, and location of providers included in a plan, and how they are paid. The government would be able to use the contract mechanism to introduce any requirement it wanted, including social policies in favor at any particular time.
Why not start with increasing competition by opening competition across states?
Why not address tort reform?
Why not start with banning denial of coverage for preconditions?