Today, Ted Kennedy's office (on behalf of the Senator no doubt) asked the Massachusetts legislature to 'fast track' a replacement for him. It is undoubtedly due to Kennedy's dwindling number of days left him on God's earth.
In 2004, that same legislature required the replacement of a Senator to be done through a special election (with a campaign period of 5 months) - rather than appointment by the Governor (as is done in Minnesota, for example). This was done to avoid having Mitt Romney replace John Kerry with a conservative should Kerry have won the Presidency in 2004. It's certainly something which was crassly political, but also of course reflected the general opinion in Massachusetts. Kerry was very popular, replacing him with a conservative would not have been.
Now, Sen. Kennedy would like that process greatly accelerated. He wants it for a meaningful reason, he feels it may well take all 60 Democrats and Independents to carry forward Health Care Reform to closure.
However, that's not sufficient excuse to once again go back and amend the laws. The changes made in 2004 for political convenience, should not simply be undone for further political convenience. Tom Delay may have railroaded through gerrymandered changes in Texas in a crass and unscrupulous way, and in a way that Democrats rightly complained about, but if Mr. Kennedy doesn't want to appear to be a hypocrite (in the extreme), he should abide by a law he quite obviously favored in 2004.
He also should have been more forward looking and resigned his seat a while back, with sufficient time to have allowed for the special election to have concluded by the time he stepped down. Doing so now is too late, and Mr. Kennedy is wrong to try.
One of the key distinctions I see between conservatives and everyone else is that, for the most part, everyone else tries to live within the rules they set - Mr. Kennedy needs to stand up for the principals he otherwise believes in. Health care reform is extraordinarily important, but if it cannot pass without him, then he wasn't forward thinking enough, and frankly, perhaps it should not pass if his health is the lynch-pin of change.
I do, and it was a good post throughout. Whether you agree with my feeling is a matter of your personal opinion. I will say I've seen what I said time and again, and feel confident in my feeling/belief.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I've seen non-conservatives implement policy regardless of politics, yet I've seen conservatives dive off the deep end of truth, despite past statements to be seeking only truth and proper outcome (for example - at the DOJ).
You don't have to agree - but I will ask you, as I agree filibuster is perfectly legitimate) did you feel the threats from the right to do away with it when THEY held the Senate, did you feel those threats were proper conduct?
By the way, "the wheels came off" is pejorative - have a care. Further, remember it's my opinion, and it cannot be innacurate in that it is reflecting MY opinion. My opinion may be wrong, but I didn't say my opinion was right, merely that it was my opinion.
BTW, KR, what do you think of people who called dissent about the Iraq war traitors, such as Ann Coulter?
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think of the Republican Senators who advocated the 'nuclear option' to END fillibuster options permanently?
The "nuclear option" was not to permanently end the filibuster, it was a very narrowly crafted rule change to limit filibusters on judicial appointments. If you recall at the time the democrats in the senate were filibustering any Bush appointments that any group, Sierra Club or NARAL for example, objected to. Several people reminded them that if they changed the rule it would still apply when democrats held 51 seats. Personally I thought the better option was to require them to filibuster like they used to, require them to be there 24/7 and when there is no next speaker you vote.
ReplyDeleteOh something I meant to mention was that Tom Delay was gerrymandering but 10 yrs earlier the democrats in the house did the same thing. At the time Delay rearranged things 70% of Texas identified itself as republican yet only 45% of the representatives from Texas were republican. Now the ratio of republicans to democrats in the population is pretty much the same as the ration in the House of representatives.
ReplyDelete"You are in the minority, most Americans are happy with their current health care."
ReplyDeleteI guess that makes me part of the minority too since I'm anything but happy with mine for several reasons and I'm curious as to the source of your information on the overall satisfaction of the American people with their healthcare. To date I have never had my health insurance pay a single cent to my health care provider for the services I've received. I will concede that the main reason for this is that I'm fortunate enough to be in relatively good health. Yet I still pay my contributions to my health insurance ever paycheck and then still have to write a check to the doctor whenever I have to see him, but never on any invoices that I receive from the doctor is a line where my insurance paid the doctor money. The other reason why I am of the opinion that healthcare reform is necessary change for the good, assuming that the wretched hive of scum and villainy that we call Capitol Hill, doesn't screw it up, is that there appears to be what I see as a grave injustice occurring within the prison system, at least in NYS anyways. I have regularly worked with several people in the medical field who are RNs, LPNs, PAs, MDs, and NPs in the NYS prison system. They have shared with me that often care and procedures that to your run of the mill law abiding citizen would be classified as "elective" or "cosmetic" can be obtained by any inmate within the system on the taxpayer's dime.
I will now to get back to the topic on hand, Sen. Edward Kennedy and the request to fast track his replacement so that the Healthcare Reform will not lose a champion in Congress. I have not great love for Ted Kennedy, I don’t hate him because for one the Lord tells me that it is wrong to hate and I have to agree not just because he said it so but because life is too short to waste it on hatred of another, better to ignore them as much as circumstances permit and then never think of them again. I know that he has been a great Senator and that he has done some great things for his constituents, however if you believe that any politician, especially one placed so highly in the halls of government, does anything that is not in the best interests of themselves then I have a bridge over the Chappaquiddick that I will sell you real cheap. The legislature put into effect the procedure for their own benefit and they should not be allowed to bypass the law just because it now hinders their best interests, unless of course they just want to repeal the law altogether. While they can be interpreted based on the specific situation, laws should be followed in every situation; they can not or at least should not be ignored or enforced solely on the grounds of convenience. That being said I think that the replacement of Senator Kennedy should be completed in the normal time frame established by the MA Legislature in 2004 and that, although I don’t want to see it happen, if the healthcare reform can’t pass without him then it doesn’t pass.
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteI agree that WAS what the 'nuclear option' was supposed to be, but I think it would have simply meant the end of the fillibuster. It would have been the start of the process disolving it's use.
I concur they should go back to 24/7 speaking requirement - but bottom line is, if one party wants to pretend to have a 'lock' on ethical conduct, I am going to poke holes in such claims. The Republicans wanted to cut-off debate on judicial nominees and have very conservative justices approved despite dissent by more than 40 Senators. KR complained about dissent no longer being patriotic, but doens't choose to acknowledge the conduct I'm pointing to.
Let's go further, both the House and the Senate under the Republicans (and Bush) refused for YEARS to investigate what happened during the run-up to the war. They refused to allow for dissent, they wouldn't even allow the DISCUSSION of some subjects (like this), they wouldn't allow for inquiry into what might have been highly unethical conduct by the executive branch, a branch they were SUPPOSED to be holding in check. They squelched and abbrogated that 'dissenting voice' requirement from the Legislative branch for years.
Neither party has anything like anything but egg on their face. I personally believe the Republicans are more crass about having politics be the TOTAL motivator for action, i.e. win at all costs - everything is politics (so says Karl Rove), but the differences are rather immaterial at this point - I just won't stand for being called a 'robot' by someone from a political wing which could have 'ACME Robots' stamped on the front of their shirts.
Tavern,
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking that question - because I had the same.
KR, what evidence do you have that the majority of Americans are satisfied? You see, HOW that question is asked is important.
Let's go further though, even if 51% are satisfied (which is the minimum majority) - what about the other 49%?
And, even if they are "satisfied" - does that mean delivery? If so, does it matter that they are unaware that other countries deliver health care more efficiently? If they knew, do you still think they'd be satisfied?
The point is, what you are advocating is called the tyranny of the majority. The majority of people MAY be satisfied (through ignorance possibly, but possibly not) but do you think that means they want 45M people to remain uninsured? Do you think they want to pay nearly $7000 per capita, twice as much as the next closest nation, to pay for a health care delivery system which ranks somewhere near 35th (in aggregate) in the world, and tied for worst among industrialized nations? Do you think even IF they are satisfied we should then simply allow the minority to languish under costs they can't pay, failing to have coverage for illnesses they TRULY need help paying to get treatment for?
If we had 10,000 people, and 5001 were 'satsified' with a system, but that system allowed 4999 people to die 20 years early, would it matter that 5001 were satisfied?
KR, you haven't debunked anything during your entire time on this blog.
ReplyDeleteDisinformation is the WILFUL practice of feeding information you know to be false. You've not shown ANYTHING which suggests that the number of uninsured people (NOT AMERICANS, BUT PEOPLE) is above 40M - whether by choice because of taking a risk because they are young or otherwise can't afford it, or whether they are aliens (illegal or not), the number is above 40M, probably above 45M.
I'm not going to ask you too many more times to be more respectful. As necessary, your comments will be removed AGAIN if you feel you have to continue with this pattern of useless psuedo-argumentation.
As for Washington and the Democrats not allowing for discussion, again, you have the shoe on the wrong foot. Obama has tried mightily to invite the Republicans to the table on health care. They simply aren't interested because they think they are winning with the public. In fact it is THEY who refuse to comprimise. Obama gave up a single-payor option, he gave up nationalized health care, he only wanted SOME public option, and the Republicans can't stand that, and so they show up and shout down any dissent at Democratic town-hall meetings (though I understand Tim Walz's meeting was boisterous, but respectful - maybe the Republicans are learning something..?)
As well, if we don't fix health care it is going to cost close to 7 Trillion, not just 1 Trillion.
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it collapses.
If we cannot afford to fix it now, how will we afford it when it costs 7 Trillion?
www.pleasecutthecrap.com
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see some evidence behind what health care is going to cost if we don't fix it.
"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free."
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't that statement an oxymoron?
As per dictionary.com:
Free - adjective - provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment.
Here is the problem with nationalizing health care. You will be adding a large number of people into the system, some of which do not want to be there. So now how do you pay for all these extra people if they truly cannot afford health care now they will not magically be able to afford it just because a law is passed saying they have to have it, the money has to come from somewhere. So all the people who currently can afford to pay will have to pay more to cover them (it can be argued we already are since they do get emergency care if needed). The only two things I have heard mentioned about where the money will come from are taxing my health care benefits (in my case it would be about $150 per paycheck) and cutting costs on medicare. Doctors and hospitals are already running from medicare because it pay so little so what are they going to cut, no details as of yet. Then there is the problem that we have shortages of nurses in areas and doctors in other areas. If you are cutting what they will be paid you are not going to get more doctors or nurses into those areas. So if you have a town that already has half the doctors they need and you add more people to the appointment schedules who do you take off the schedules to accommodate that? None of these problems are insurmountable but if Congress is just saying we need this support it then people will assume these things will be fixed by higher taxes and rationed care. No one wants that. If the administration has answers to these problems they need to start telling people because right now they are either covering things up or just doing a very poor job selling the plan they want.
ReplyDeleteTtuck,
ReplyDeleteThe general idea of insurance is that the more people participate, the more costs are defrayed for those who need and use it.
Clearly there are people who cannot afford health care insurance, both now, and even if the costs are somewhat lower if defrayed.
The issue then is two-fold. First, isn't it part of what we generally believe as Americans that we help those who are either too poor or too frail to do for themselves what needs to be done? Second, while the cost of acting is obviously significant, the cost of NOT acting is easily demonstrated to be much higher.
Those who don't have insurance right now are generally a. younger b. immigrants or c. both in some cases. The fact that these two groups don't have insurance NOW doesn't mean they won't need it later - and they contribute dramatically to the economy overall. If we don't help move them into paying now, we certainly can't expect to be able to cover the cost of caring for their health needs later.
I must agree with K-Rod. Penigma...good post up till your partisanship showed up. To lay claim that one party somehow represents truth and morals and sticks to it's ideals is border line idolatry. Liberals, conservatives and everyone else have good and bad in them. No single political belief system is without it's flaws and without it's flawed leaders. To believe such a thing exists among everyone but conservatives is bigotry at it's best and quasi-religious fervor at it's worst. To promote such a thing by making such a claim is very far from reasonable responsible debate. It's inflammatory and flawed. In fact I challenge that the very sentence is in direct conflict with a Liberals open tent policy. I consider myself to be a conservative and I believe to be a level headed logical thinker. Would you say that somehow I am beneath you? Do you insinuate because someone strives to be a good, law abiding, moral person and fails and just so happens to be a conservative they are somehow less pardonable than someone who fails to live by a less stringent belief, code or rule structure? Or is it you dislike someone who espouses one moral and lives another? Either way, I think I could easily present plenty of examples of Liberals failing to live by their own codes. Be careful of getting into a pot and kettle debate. From what I understood from ToE this was a reasonable responsible forum for open debate. I would think it has no room for bigotry of any kind. Do you not agree?
ReplyDeleteAnother point, Penigma you state:
"If so, does it matter that they are unaware that other countries deliver health care more efficiently? If they knew, do you still think they'd be satisfied?"
I challenge you to support that claim that other countries deliver health care more efficiently. I live in a country with nationalized health care. I have family and colleagues that live in other countries with nationalized health care. I actually have expirience under nationalized health care. I would like to ask you what evidence do you have to make such a claim. I can present plenty to contridict that claim. I'd also like you to define your meaning of "efficiently". When you state more efficiently would you be referring to patients of certain age groups not getting certain treatments? Or certain diseases being allowed to progress without treatment because the treatments are too costly? How about long waiting lines to get a MRI because it's more efficient to push everyone through 1 machine than 2? This is the reality of national health care. I live it. I needed a MRI on my shoulder. The hospital could get to me in oh....6 months. I went to a private clinic and got it in a week. You're absolutely right if this is what you mean by more efficiently.
Jas,
ReplyDeleteI have time and again provided information which supports it - in contrast, I challenge YOU to provide data which supports the US delivers it well. There are millions of stories, anecdotes of person experiences, of it's failures, as well as the statistics themselves.
KR - cherry-picking data like (who don't qualify and make less than $50k) - doesn't make you correct, it makes you seeking answers you WANT to find, and finding facts you seek.
First, $50k is our bell-weather, since when, since when can someone who makes $50k PAY for chemo-therapy or for dialysis when their insurance has been terminated because they had some prior medical condition? Since WHEN does Medicaid adequately cover such costs so that the person and their family don't wind up in bankruptcy.
Jas - France ranks 5th and 12th in life expectancy and infant mortality, the US ranks 29th and 40th (iirc). I'll post the data (again), but let me first refer you to the CIA Factbook.
Here's a few stats:
Health Insurance
Among the 84.2% with health insurance in 2006, coverage was provided through an employer 59.7%, purchased individually 9.1%, and 27.0% was government funded (Medicare, Medicaid, Military). (There is some overlap in coverage figures.) Source: US Census Bureau
The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics
More than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007
Health Care Expenditures
The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country . . . and spending continues to increase. In 2005, the national health care expenditures totaled $2 trillion. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
75% of all health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, many of which can be prevented, including diabetes, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, high blood pressure, and cancer. Source: Health Affairs
From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5%, wages have increased 3.8%, and health care premiums have increased 87%. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
The average family health insurance premium, provided through an employer health benefit program, was $11,480 in 2006. Employees paid an average of $2,973 towards the premium amount. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
Infant Mortality
The United States ranks 43rd in lowest infant mortality rate, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990. Singapore has the lowest rate with 2.3 deaths per 1000 live births, while the United States has a rate of 6.3 deaths per 1000 live births. Some of the other 42 nations that have a lower infant mortality rate than the US include Hong Kong, Slovenia, and Cuba. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
Approximately 30,000 infants die in the United States each year. The infant mortality rate, which is the risk of death during the first year of life, is related to the underlying health of the mother, public health practices, socioeconomic conditions, and availability and use of appropriate health care for infants and pregnant women. Sources: CDC and National Center for Health Statistics
Life Expectancy
Life expectancy at birth in the US is an average of 78.14 years, which ranks 47th in highest total life expectancy compared to other countries. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
Bankruptcy
About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005
Jas,
ReplyDeleteI've not frequently replied to your posts because you tend to make them both long and in bunches.
However, I do not feel 'challenge' is a wise set of words - I worked in this space, and live in this country which is failing it's people by kowtowing to the wealthy to preserve a broken system which only delivers health care very well to the wealthiest, but won't change because in part those wealthy are also the heads of insurance and drug companies, are doctors with large incomes, etc.. and they get foot soldiers like KR to sit and make silly comments like only 10M people REALLY need help when the way such numbers are arrived at is so fraudulent, so staged, so framed, that it defies logic in some respects to even TRY to argue against it with such people because it is so obvious they have no intention of EVER listening, ever changing.
I believe you live in France (or did)? based on your comments - I urge you to come and spend some time on an American insurance program. 20 years ago it worked ok, not great, but ok. Now, for example, I need a medicine, it's not life-threatening, or even that serious a problem other than left untreated it CAN cause cancer - well, anyway, I need this medicine. I have insurance, but they won't pay for it - because in their mind other medicines (less expesnive medicines) THEY claim work just as well. Now those medicines DO work just as well for SOME, but they do not for a good percentage - but there is NOTHING I can do, so I pay $200 a month for this medicine. I have the income to do so, but how many people do?
When this drug reaches 17 years on the market it doubtless will plummit in price, and probably then it will be covered by insurance companies - the decision wasn't really about efficacy, it was about cost. Our health care system is driven by COST first and foremost and always - and we are failing. If you think the US is delivering care well, you are making a claim TOTALLY unsupported by dozens of different delivery statistics. So, I challenge you, provide evidence the US has a health care system which delivers care well on average given the vast wealth this nation has- I don't think there are many people who would make that claim.
KR,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I obviously didn't say anything about how 'patentts were pesky' or anything of the sort, however, it seems you needed to put words in my mouth.
My point was simply this, the US system doesn't work very well. People cannot afford drugs which they need. Jas was asserting (incorrectly in my opinion and the finding of vast numbers of researchers) that the US health care system isn't lagging the industrialized world substantially. I disagree, access to medicine is one (albeit anecdotal) measure.
However, as you've brought up patents, let's go there for a bit. There are clearly some very good reasons for patents - but equally, there are clearly some very good reasons to make drugs available more cheaply - sometimes the good of the many needs to have a consideration - such as the decision by US manufacturers to build war materials at cost during WWII - in various agreements reached with the government.
We have drugs which charge through the roof for 17 years, then go to zero in cost because there then become available generic equivilants. It would seem more practical to find an alternative solution.
We provide 17 years of protection - why, because that's what business desires - could it be changed, certainly, will it, hell no. Could there be an agreement to deal with certain things, like say, medicine differently, sure there could, will there be, hell no. However, thanks very much for making light of my personal situation, very thoughtful.
Second, I worked in insurance for 11 years, I know it better in my sleep than you'll ever understand it - I certainly don't need a lecture on what it means or doesn't mean.
For example, please answer the following question -
When someone asks for an appeal on a self-funded program or on an insurance program, what is the impact of granting such appeal in a self-funded program vs. an insurance program if BOTH define the treatment/process as not covered?
I'll await your reply - the above is a very basic question for someone fairly familiar with the rules of self-funded policies vs. insurance - but I'll let you chew on it - please reply within a reasonable time frame however.
KR- I'm stil awaiting your answer on self-funded vs. traditional insurance appeal impacts.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Case Management - that term has several applications.
First, much of psychiatry/psychology has evolved into something called goal oriented care (if I recall - it HAS been 14 years since I worked in Chem Dep/psych). Meaning, traditional Freudian analysis was seen as too nebulous and long-term to be of clinical efficacy - so the patient's were to be given specific, measureable goals with an eye toward improvement and eventual cessation of the need for routine clinical visits. This 'case management' was handled by (traditionally) in-house (to the HMO/PPO) clinicians who would routinely review the care and progress of the patient.
With respect to hospital care - Case Management came to embody the idea that certain stays and/or illnesses would benefit from the same sort of routine and active review of the appropriateness of the stay (or method of treatment). It started primarily from the Pre-Certification requirements of traditional insurance, but 'metamorphisized' into continual review while in hospital of the decisions of clinicians to keep the patient in the hospital.
I believe, but am not conversant with, that this has further evolved in to management of other kinds of care, especially, but not limited to geriatric care. In fact, there are now rules that govern when and whether (under Medicare) you can go to a traditional nursing home, and whether subsequent transfer to a Hospice facility will be covered. Such standards (on this specific point) have been in place for some time, but I believe that both insurance and HMO carriers have migrated this approach to some other areas. That happened, however, after I'd left health care administration.
Regardless, it speaks to the fact that the idea of 'government' deciding what's best for you is no more foreign to current treatment practices than anything the HMO's and insurers do now. The key difference of course being that insurance operates with a 25% cost overhead, while Medicare and Medicaid operate at about a 6% overhead. As well, while there are ACTIVE case management practices in traditional insurance (meaning day over day review of costs and treatment decisions driven by cost), there is far less so in Medicare (in general).
Was that the Case Management component you were asking about?
Also, would you please answer my question?
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"Therefore, whatever problems are associated with this - and I agree that there ARE problems - I disagree with what appears to be your very selective assignment of responsibility for those problem with this legislation to Ted Kennedy."
Your assumption is baseless.
I pointed out none of the problems I have with NCLB.
Yes, it is a fact that President Bush signed that legislation into law.
It was Kennedy's legislation, he co-authored it and supported it.
I would expect y'all to give the honorable Senator (RIP) praise for such legislation.
August 27, 2009 1:33 PM
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"You are in factual error KR."
Kennedy didn't co-author it and support it and Bush didn't sign the bill into law?
DG, are you sure?
August 27, 2009 3:04 PM
K-Rod said...
"...republican equivalent of Senator Kennedy in either the House or Senate..."
There was this maverick that had wide support... right up to when he won the nomination... then he was labeled a right-wing-radical.
I say NO to your false talking points and misinformation, TOE.
If you do some research you will find at least three health care reform proposals from the Rethuglicans. ;)
August 27, 2009 3:14 PM
dog gone said...
ReplyDeleteK-Rod said...
Don't forget No Child Left Behind
I can't help but wonder just how long the BDS will last."
KR, NCLB was proposed by George W. Bush shortly after he became president. It was co-authored by republican representative John Boehner,and republican senator Judd Gregg. Democratic senator Kennedy co-authored and promoted its passage, along with democratic representative George Miller. It received substantial bi-partisan support.
Therefore, whatever problems are associated with this - and I agree that there ARE problems - I disagree with what appears to be your very selective assignment of responsibility for those problem with this legislation to Ted Kennedy.
I don't have the distribution of votes used to pass this legislation immediately to hand, but my recollection is that while bi-partisan, it received greater support among conservatives and republicans than it did from democrats and liberals.
If you want to apportion responsibility and blame fairly, it is a useful discussion. To use this to bash Kennedy, without including those others - not.
August 27, 2009 11:19 AM
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteDon't forget No Child Left Behind
I can't help but wonder just how long the BDS will last.
August 27, 2009 9:31 AM
ThoughtsOfEternity said...
K-Rod answer me some questions:
1) Do you favor a limited or no role of the Federal Government in education matters?
2) Do you prefer local or federal control of schools and education policy?
3) Do you prefer state or federal control of school and teacher standards?
Traditionally, most conservatives (and therefore most, but not all Republicans), have allegedly favored a smaller role of the federal government in matters usually left to local control, such as education of our children. Yet, the No Child Left Behind act was one of the largest federal intrusions into local matters in our recent history.
All of a sudden, the federal government told states that no federal money would be coming to help with education unless they complied with a long list of mandates. (most of which weren't paid for by the federal government).
While the No Child Left Behind act was supported by Senator Kennedy, it was primarily a creation of President Bush and the republican administration. If anything, Senator Kennedy's support of it shows his willingness to work with republicans. Sadly, I can't say that I see any republican equivalent of Senator Kennedy in either the House or Senate today. All the republicans I see there have the word NO tattooed on their forehead.
August 27, 2009 11:29 AM
dog gone said...
KR wrote
"Yes, it is a fact that President Bush signed that legislation into law.
It was Kennedy's legislation, he co-authored it and supported it.
I would expect y'all to give the honorable Senator (RIP) praise for such legislation."
You are in factual error KR. BUSH initiated it, BUSH actively sought out bi-partisan authors in Congress for it, and outlined wht he wanted in it. It was HIS baby; Bush was the originator, and he claimed the credit for it. He was not merely the signer.
Kennedy was one of four legislators, in addition to Bush, in authoring the NCLB legislation.
Beyond that I see no basis to bring it up here - it was neither his best, nor his worst legislation, nor one that represented his greatest passion, or participation. It isn't that much 'his'; it wasn't his creation.
dog gone said...
ReplyDeleteKR wrote:
"K-Rod said...
"You are in factual error KR."
Kennedy didn't co-author it and support it and Bush didn't sign the bill into law?
DG, are you sure?"
I'm sure. The ideas in NCLB originated with Bush; Bush approached Kennedy and the others for help in submitting and promoting Bush's legislation. As the president, he needed congressmen and senators to submit this legislation; but it was a cornerstone of his domestic program in campaigning.
So, while Kennedy's name appears as one of the bills authors, no, it is not his legislation, and yes, Bush has the greater part of the responsibility for it; it was his idea, his big thing to push through. He did much much more than just sign it.
Here is an excerpt from one of the newspapers; it is pretty typical.
"Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 9, 2009; Page A02
Before he was a war president, George W. Bush fashioned himself as an education president. He campaigned as a school reformer and held his first policy speech at a Washington elementary school, where he began laying the groundwork for the controversial No Child Left Behind education law."
I would suggest looking for yourself; you don't have to take my word for it. This was a Bush project, and while it did have some bipartisan support it was much more strongly pushed from the right / conservatives than from the left / liberals.
So, no it is not correct to characterize this as a Ted Kennedy effort. He helped, but he only pushed a bit; it was someone else's pet project, beginning to end. And that person was George Bush; he left office proud of it, claiming it all the way.
August 27, 2009 4:55 PM
Post a Comment
KR said, "TOE, are you going to re-post those talking points on this thread about how Senator John McCain became a rabid-right-wing-nut once he won the nomination? "
ReplyDeleteTo coin a phrase 'Got a quote'? :)
KR - that's not what he said, but I agree it is at least close to what he implied (though not entirely so). My comment to your question is this, if you desire for us to allow you artistic license in how you rephrase our comments, then you, I assume won't mind when the same is done regarding your comments?
McCain, like many nominees before him, had to dance to the extreme to get his party's nomination. For McCain, I think it is inarguable that he was much more centrist than his party base. In fact, a great deal of rhetorical energy went in to talking about how Palin was there to placate the right-wing base because McCain was seen as too liberal for that base's preference. As well, there has been much hand-wringing since the 2008 election that the Republicans weren't 'conservative enough' and THAT was the reason they lost - McCain was and is pointed to as having been insufficiently conservative in his approach.
So, I don't think ToE or anyone else needs to further point out what I very well suspect you already have read and are aware of.
In answer to KR's request for an example of McCain taking a more right wing, less maverick / less moderate position.:
ReplyDeletewww.politicususa.com/en/McCain-Death-Panel
(Thank you all for shifting the comments to this heading.)
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteWhen are you going to get it through your head that the health care reform bill doesn't allow a government bureaucrat to manage the end of your life. The lies that have been told about this health care reform bill are some of the most egregious examples of blatant dirty politics I've ever seen. 95% of those lies have come from Republicans, some of them from allegedly respected Republicans.
You don't need to take my word for it. factcheck.org has a long list of outright fabrications about the health care bill, including some spouted by such "knowledgeable" Republicans as Sarah Palin.
I am an American who has lived and worked in both the U.S. and U.K. systems. I feel as though something must be said regarding this scenario, so here goes:
ReplyDeleteBased on the experiences of myself (American), my wife (British), our families (both nationalities), and our friends (both nationalities), I can say this with confidence:
BOTH systems are generally good, but BOTH are in need of reforms. The U.K. needs to carry on with its quality reforms (which it has been doing for some time now, with success), and the U.S. needs to cover all of its citizens (for a variety of reasons).
Many of us have found the quality of care to be somewhat better in the U.S. system, and the hospitals are far more aesthetically pleasing in the U.S. (which is a genuine psychological boost to patients, and not to be discounted). So those things are "positives" on the American side of the ledger.
Then again, we all agree that the British system has improved dramatically in the area of quality over the last forty or fifty years. The ridiculous statements made here in the U.S. by the political right regarding the British NHS bear no relation to the NHS of today.
(These politicians are basically describing the crappy NHS of the post-war 1950s, which is long, long gone. Either they are incredibly naive, which I do not discount as a real possibility, or they think that most Americans are incredibly naive and likely to believe their scary fairy tales regarding the British system.)
And let's look at the facts: multiple international studies concur that the average Briton lives almost two years longer than the average American. So the NHS is doing just fine, thank you very much.
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of aspects of the U.S. system, but there is one aspect of the British NHS that I love, and which no one here in the States seems to be talking about--at least not directly. You see, it never occurs to folks living in the U.K. to worry about whether they'll be "covered" if mom or dad loses their job, or if someone gets sick. That's because they're automatically covered. Period.
And THAT is a big psychological boost to folks in Britain.
If those of us presently engaged in spewing juvenile hyperbole based on hear-say shut our mouths for once and actually listened to people who have experiences with various health care systems, we might learn that places like, say, the U.S. and the U.K. can learn a lot from each other, can hybridize our systems to retain what is good and improve what needs improving, and can continue to improve the quality of our citizen's lives.
The following is an article that makes sense--probably too much sense for most people to agree with:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6801061.ece
Penigma,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"... it seems you needed to put words in my mouth.
My point was simply this, the US system doesn't work very well. People cannot afford drugs which they need. Jas was asserting (incorrectly in my opinion and the finding of vast numbers of researchers) that the US health care system isn't lagging the industrialized world substantially. I disagree, access to medicine is one (albeit anecdotal) measure."
Ummm...speaking about putting words in ones mouth...where or when have I EVER stated that.
The USA IS lagging in many aspects of it's health care delivery. Without a doubt. European health care systems have good aspects too them. Without a doubt. Is one better than the other? It's not really possible to compare them.
I'm sorry to hear about you health problems. Let me state though that YOUR post states EXACTLY why the current bill is flawed.
I wonder if the drug you'd like to have available to you would be provided to you in Europe. Health care IS about COST....and that's true in Europe as well. Which is why my friends brain cancer treatment was denied and my wife's thryoid treatment was denied. In my friends case he was told to go home and die, in my wife's case she was told to go home and come back when the thyroid is dead.
Please show me how your situation would change under a nationalized health care.
Thanks for providing your stats. Did you know that data about infant mortality is flawed. Feel free to read:
http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2009/07/06/health-myth-1-%E2%80%9Cthe-us-has-one-of-the-highest-infant-mortality-rates-in-the-developed-world%E2%80%9D/
I'm not saying we're BETTER than Europe or anyone else for that matter. I'm ASK how this bill makes our current situation BETTER. It doesn't and it won't. The ONLY thing it will do is give the government unprecendented control over our lives, give use a huge unpayable deficiet, and cover SOME people but not all until at least a decade or more. So I ask WHY the rush to go from a bad system to a bad system? I've never EVER said we have a well running health care system....I've only questioned the current purposal.
Good post Hasslington. Neither systems are perfect. We should strive to make them better. I just don't think the current various versions of the bills before Congress are what we need. I don't agree with universal coverage in the European format ONLY because I don't see it as a significant improvement for the country as a whole. I see it as bringing some people down and some people up. I would agree with a universal coverage plan that instead brings people up. I also think it would go a LONG ways for the Congress, Senate, and President to pass several bills over a period of time written in common language so that the public can digest what is being purposed. I think MOST Americans (me included) think that something better than our current health care system can be created and if we can work it out slowly and methodically we might just come up with a great plan. This desire by Obama and the Democrats to rush things through only hilights the fact that they know Americans won't support their plans and so they are rushing to beat that November 2010 dead-line. I notice the Democrats that come from a pedominately secure disctrict are the ONLY ones pushing hard for this. I wonder why that is?
ReplyDeleteThe more attempts to circumvet ban and block,
ReplyDeleteNight and Day, right round the clock,
In comments and spam,
KR's anger he crams.
And in Rhyme we'll continue to mock.