How's that for spin? I agree to some extent that there is a great deal of room for improvement, but that reform should be in smaller increments that are easier to "digest" and to see what effect they have on the system as a whole, rather than complete government seizure of the system. One of the writers of the US Constitution had an interesting take on large bills..."It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood .--James Madison"
That's the problem here. This administration and Congress have chosen to take control of the entire system in the name of "efficiency" despite the simple fact that the following programs were supposed to be either efficient or save money:
- U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
- Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
- Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
- War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
- Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
- Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
Now...what we have is a very large majority of the people in this country who are opposing the bills that have been sitting in Congress for a year now and the "new" bill of the Mr. Obama's that is merely a rehash of the ugly bill passed through the Senate of Christmas Eve. "More than four in five Americans say it's important that any health care plan have support from both parties. And 68 percent say the president and congressional Democrats should keep trying to cut a deal with Republicans rather than pass a bill with no GOP support." That's to say, don't pass any of these bills.
Never before in the history of the United States has any bill of the magnitude as this one ever been passed by Congress on strict party lines. If this behemouth passes, this November's elections could, and should see historic losses by the ruling party along the lines of those of 1816-20, when the Federalist Party dissolved under the weight of public disgust. John DeHority, a Democrat who lives in Rochester, N.Y., and is a firm supporter of Mr. Obama's effort. But even he has suggested the Republican opposition is winning the current political battle.
"I think passing the bill in its current form would be political suicide for Democrats," said DeHority, 56, who is a researcher in health care imaging . He believes that theproposed legislation would fail because they could not control costs, and "Democrats will take the fall for that." Mr. Obama's own message has been shifting , and because of this is unpersuasive to most voters. In the course of the past year, "he has moved his emphasis from the moral implications of improving health care to the cost-cutting possibilities to the impact on the deficit."
That's an opinion of someone who is trying to help the party in their desire to take control of ever more of the private economic sector. Political suicide seems to be what the leadership of the Democratic Party want. I spoke to a small business owner yesterday here in Pikesville, Maryland. He has been a lifelong Democrat, but in the past year, he is shifting rightward along with the rest of the country and has become and adamant opponent of his own party's desire to dictate what he must provide for his employees in a faltering economy. His take on this is that it's not a matter for the federal government to impose upon the states a mandate that will become a huge burden upon each state, unless that states ("more and more corrupt politicians") are able to make deals to exempt their states from the provisions of the bill (Gator Aid, Louisianna Purchase & Cornhusker Kickback)...
Think about that...a very liberal small business man who has never voted for a Republican is now planning to vote against every single Democratic incumbent this November because in his view, the party is going in the wrong direction in a time of economic stress...unfortunately, for him, the Democratic leadership isn't listening.
My personal objections to this bill are many, but my anger is greatest that Congress and Mr. Obama have specifically exempted ALL Federal employees and Congress from the provisions of this bill. If it's good enough for me, then dammit it's good enough for them!