The sad thing is I am not even a classic liberal though I ahve liberal views. I have a libertarian bent. My opinion on this comes from a pure cost benefit analysis. We keep skimping money on projects that can save a lot of lives. While people are bickering over a public option, how about just expanding Medicaid and Medicare to more income and age demos and save a lot more lives for the money spent instead of 3wasting tha tmoney on execessive airport security measure and silly wars? BUt if I can articulate the benefits of public healthcare at least as an option, why can't full time Democrats?
Yeah, it's amazing how much money they will waste to avoid such a tiny chance of extra danger, yet conservatives whine about money that can save a lot more lives by giving even basic healthcare coverage(not even "cadillac" level) to those who can not afford it.
Spend money on intelligence, common sense airport security, secure cockpit doors, put air marshalls on random flights on strategic routes, there you go. THe leaders need to lead instead of pandering to the fear of the masses. All that money and inconvenience to save a few lives is better spent on healthcare to save a LOT more lives.
The way republicans and blue dogs like to ask why our tax money should pay for healthcare for the poor?? I would like to use the same complaint to ask why MY TAX MONEY is being spent to make cowards in the country feel safe. I dont want my tax money wasted on semi competent extra TSA agents to screen for ridiculous stuff.
How did Bush get his appointees through? Even without Lieberman, we have more senators than Bush did. And yes, I am sure there is at least one non-liberal finance guy who is ethically good enough to hire as Treasury Secretary and who would be palatable to the republicans like Snowe, if it comes down to that. If Lieberman objects even for this, at some point blame Obama for not kicking him out of his chairmanship via surrogates inthe senate. Lieberman's leverage only lies in each instance of catipulation by the Obama people.
It's not just liberal who can't stand Timmah. Conservatives hate him too.
I am beginning to wonder if Paul H O Neill, the first Bush Treasury guy wouldn't be a better choice than Timmah. At least, he seems to have more ethics.
Despite this, why am I still noconsidering becming a Republican? At least Barney Frank asked for an investigation. I dont know if any republicans were trying to investigate Bush appointees. Well, maybe Hagel, i am not sure.
Democrats keep blowing it. Good riddance to Dodd(even if he was nowhere as bad as Geithner), and now Obama trusts Geithner so much. How can our party be so freaking dumb? And we have the audacity to bash the Naderites. If Obama is not dumb enough to keep Geithner for so long, maybe people wouldn't be tempted to either vote third party or stay home and not vote. I have not trusted this weasel from Day 1 . Isnt this proving a guy like NAder right? Both parties in cahoots with money?Sure the republicans are worse, but when Obama's admin is bad enough, who really cares about the level of indifference to what is fair? Explain to me how this statement has been proven false with the Democrats in power. It's been a year since the Democrats controlled the entire power structure and we still not have a single meaningful financial reform implemented. What excuse does our party have now? Until now, we blamed Bush. How much better is our party that sells out? Madoff has been plying his scam even before Bush. And even if the Democrats come up with some measures, are they going to fire auditors when they fail to capture the Bernie Madoffs of the world? Last time I checked, some of this fraud started in the Clinton era and a lot of it predated him too.
We just give easy excuses for the Republicans to divert tthe masses attention from their culpability in this financial mess. If Obama does not clean up his act, I am not voting for him in 2012. I will write in whoeever the hell I please. So far, my life has not been better off even though the imbecile Bush is gone and we control the White House, the senate and the House of Reps.
I would love to see Ford flame out badly here. I just read up on Gillibrand and despite her past with the Blue Dogs, she seems like a pretty decent senator. I don't care if her personal ideology is less liberal than the average democrat. Her actions seem more progressive than the average Democratic senator.
Ford on the other hand, just rubs me the wrong way. He seems so spineless and slimy.
Dont blame Nader for screwing anything up. If the Democrats did their job, Nader would be a total non factor. Do you think Nader would take any votes from Feingold if he chose to run against him the next time they have an election there? The best way to make someone irrelevant is not to whine about him being a spoiler but to make sure the party is strong enough to withstand such a challenge. I see we have not learned the real lesson from 2000. Take care of our own shit and people will vote FOR you instead of AGAINST you.
Funny how Republicans or Gerstein or Lieberman types never really put the heat on accountability for Republican missteps in the war on terror. Why is no one asking Lieberman to step down from his chairmanship.
As far as Napolitano, I don't have high regard for her. She seemed a little clueless in articulating what is going on. She should have shown some leadership and explained clearly what is going to happen when they catch the official who blundered in not escalating the complaint by the terrorist's dad. There has been no accountability during the Bushies term. I want Napolitano to show that there will be accountability now instead of resorting to pandering to the masses by condoning an overreaction by the government when it comes to TSA security measures.
But how does pricing for preexisting conditions work? How would company A price a patient versus Company B? What if one company gets an inordinate amount of high risk patients while the other company just sits idly by?
These are curiousity related questions, not challenges to the diary: 1)Are there any limits on insurance companies premiums for patients with preexisting conditions?
How is this a net positive. One segment of population gets covered when they werent before. But another segment that elects not to spend a lot of money on insurance , now are forced to pay for that insurance. Where is the significant net positive tradeoff in this?
Just from a private perspective, how does one determine a fair premium for a preexisting condition in the private market that is affordable? If I own an insurance company and I am forced to compete with another, what is the government going to do to even out the risk between me and my competitor in taking on high risk patients.Wouldnt it have been better just to let private companies compete across states in a true free market, let them get their profits, and then have the government fund people with preexisting conditions under a public option?
Obviously, this case is puzzling. Usually southerners who support Dean wouldn't even dream of becoming republican. But I would like to add that some people prefer bold direction to ideology. Take my case. I am a big Dean supporter even if I won't support every single stance of his. Hell, even Dean is mischaracterized as a leftist. I think some people will mistake me for a leftist purist with my incessant attacks on many Democrats, especially the so called moderates like Bayh, Landrieu, and now let's lump Obama into that group. However, I stand with libertarians and conservatives on some issues that liberals wouldn't approve of.