Republicans using Healthcare as a political game.

The problem with your argument is that it smacks up against reality.

We have a private, for-profit, health care system now that the great majority of us can see is a disaster. Costs are rising at a far greater rate than incomes, outcomes are not that good compared to other countries with much lower costs, and it is far too easy for good, working Americans to fall through the cracks.

(Ironically this is not that different than the for-profit war in Iraq that the great majority of us now see was a disaster. But you made this connection and I will let you decide if you want to continue down this path).

Republicans are arguing for the status-quo, in spite of the fact that it is clearly failing, and in spite of the fact that many other countries have socialized health care systems that-- under any objective measurement-- provide better results at a lower cost.

i know i'm a "simpleton"

healthinsurance = keep people healthy

war = killing and maiming people - including many americans .

of course , there is more to it than what i picked out ... but i would have trouble discussing the two items in one subject .

One side apparently wants to see it continue to fail and the other apparently wants to fix it without it costing anything.

KRISTOL'S ADVICE SOUNDS FAMILIAR.... In his inaugural column for the print edition of the Washington Post, Bill Kristol offers some advice for his Republican brethren: obstruct as much as humanly possible.

...Obama's aim is not merely to "revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity." ... Conservatives and Republicans will disapprove of this effort. They will oppose it. Can they do so effectively?

Perhaps -- if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year. They can't allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965. Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can't win politically right now. But they can raise doubts.... Only if this happens will conservatives be able to get a hearing for their (compelling, in my view) arguments against big-government, liberal-nanny-state social engineering -- and for their preferred alternatives.



It seems like an odd thing for Kristol to put in writing. Generally, Republicans say they want to at least try to have a constructive role in public policy. Kristol counsels the opposite -- Obama is poised to "make history," so Republicans need to "obstruct and delay." The GOP, Kristol insists, needs to "find reasons" to do. Obstruct for obstruction's sake, and figure out the rationale later.

What's striking is how predictable Kristol's advice has become. This was the strategy Kristol recommended during the fight over the economic recovery package, and more importantly, it was the advice he offered Republicans in the early 1990s, when they confronted the Clinton White House. Indeed, in December 1993, Kristol wrote a strategy memo to congressional Republicans, urging them to "kill" any effort at healthcare reform -- "sight unseen" -- because it would help the Democratic Party.

Jonathan Chait noted this morning, "His current advice is equally disingenuous. Kristol is saying that Republicans should raise objections about the speed of legislation, pick fights, point to foreign policy -- but not because they actually care about the speed of the legislative process or the other fights they're going to pick. It will all be a pretext to stop Obama's agenda. Is this the kind of thing he should be admitting in public?"

Probably not. The minority party is going to oppose the majority party's ideas. That's expected; it's what the minority party is supposed to do. But Kristol's advice helps end the charade -- Republicans, if they take the columnist's advice, won't play a constructive role and won't make good-faith compromises to advance a policy agenda.

That's largely in line with expectations, but it's nevertheless interesting to see in print.

But clearly, the president " the goals the president set out I agree with " you know, cover everybody, bend the out-year cost curve, make sure if you have your own insurance you get " and you like it, you get to keep it.

The thread started with a quote from republican who wants the health care reform to be Obama's 'Waterloo' to "break him".

As for objective measures of healthcare quality:

The thread started with a quote from republican who wants the health care reform to be Obama's 'Waterloo' to "break him".

I understand, in a way, if GOPers don't agree with any of the Obama administration's plans they would not want them to pass. They should say why and what they object to and they would have put in place. But just to obstruct and delay to help the republican part is not putting Americans first but their own party first.

However, after reading the transcript it seem there are some republicans who want to see some action on health care reform and our offering up their own plans. Which is good.

wheres Japan, Canada, UK, France, etc. I can undertsand the Germany survival rate since the numbers reflect 2000 to 2002 nd include the old "East Germany".

I wonder whether those stats were "cherry picked" dont you?

I wonder whether those stats were "cherry picked" dont you?

Yup.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As for objective measures of healthcare quality:

okey dokey - can do

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

http://www.cancerrecovery.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CancerSurvivalDependsonWhereyouLive

abstract of the source document

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(08)70179-7/abstract

I'm still looking for free access to the full report.

That would be "a" Republican.

It would also be a Republican expressing a desire for the Obama healthcare reform plan to fail.

It doesn't follow from either that Republicans don't want helathcare reform.

Sounds a lot like the Democrat's strategy when Republicans held power in the White House and Congress. I could be wrong, but I doubt you were chastising the Dems for their obstructionism back then.

For the record, I have never said, or even thought, that a bill should be defeated simply to make Bush fail.