Political Realism 101
I will be disappointed if national health care reform contains a weak public option, but as I have said here before - - teeing off some more liberal readers - - there are times when you have to start somewhere, and major health care legislative action with a weak public option at least gets the ball rolling.
It's like the Milwaukee streetcar plan that may finally get started next year or so: a far cry from the light rail the city needs to thrive, but political realities intervene and things take a long time to fundamentally change.
It doesn't mean I have to like it, but that's the way it is sometimes.
With Speaker Pelosi finally delivering her 1,990 page 10.4 lbs health care "reform" bill, wonder what it was exactly they were going to pass before the August recess, am getting more confidant they will not get anything of substance thru congress.
And where is Reid's Senate plan, we know he has one - why won't he share it with the public?
Do you know that Wisconsin is at the bottom of medicare reimbursement for providers, and you would support a public option that will drive patients into the public option which pays lower provider rates? Does this make sense to you? This is the reason why Sen Conrad does not support the so called "robust" public option. Hospitals would go out of business in North Dakota. Wisconsin is in the top five of best medical outcomes in the country. The best public option would be one that has to negoiate rates. Why isnt this fair?
Simple Realism 101 - handing over the health care system to the government, regardless of who is running it, could not be any more idiotic.
The H1N1 flu shot fiasco is a shining example of what all health care will be once you have your single payer system you are so in love with.
Higher cost and less service is the norm for any & all public sector organizations.
Post a Comment