We Can’t Afford to Wait
September 9, 2009
The music is “You Are The Everything” by R.E.M., one of my favorites.
12 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
If we can’t afford to wait why is the plan not scheduled to go into effect until 2013?
BA
That is a bit unfair. While it is best if today all things can be changed and fixed, we both know it takes time to process the changes. This is why it would take til 2013. The problem is, the longer we fight, the later it would be for any changes.
While it is best if today all things can be changed and fixed, we both know it takes time to process the changes. This is why it would take til 2013.
No, Henry, we don’t know that. The plan goes into effect in 2013 because that’s after the next Presidential election. If Obama wanted to he could have it go into effect much sooner than that, but he doesn’t want to risk it backfiring on him politically. That’s why the plan doesn’t kick in till 2013.
http://catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/2009/09/senator-kennedys-letter-to-president.html
“But you [President Obama] have also reminded all of us that [health care] concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
Blackadder
“he plan goes into effect in 2013 because that’s after the next Presidential election.”
Prove that point. Show that it is all about elections – and only that. That a fallacious reading of the situation.
To do a real change in the system does take time. That is the reality. Things don’t change quickly (well, they can, but quick changes tend to have ill effects).
BA,
Better, given motives are difficult to prove, could you take the text of HR 3200 (which I am sure others like me have read, as our conservative friends so insist) and write up some amendments that would move up the effective date? Personally, I just don’t see how it is phyiscally possible, but maybe you have better legislative drafting skills than I do.
Henry,
I can’t think of a single instance where a government health care system took four years to implement (and the provisions of this bill, mind you, don’t even *begin* to be implemented for four years). When President Johnson signed the bill establishing Medicare, the first Medicare card was issued that day. Countries have adopted radically different health care systems in far less time. That it would take four years to set up a health care exchange or establish a public option is just laughable.
Better, given motives are difficult to prove, could you take the text of HR 3200 (which I am sure others like me have read, as our conservative friends so insist) and write up some amendments that would move up the effective date? Personally, I just don’t see how it is phyiscally possible, but maybe you have better legislative drafting skills than I do.
I’m not a member of congress, Kurt, and hence don’t have the power to offer amendments. It’s not like drafting an amendment that changes a date requires a lot of legal acumen.
I’m afraid I’m scratching my head about the idea that implementing a series of new taxes, regulations, and subsidies in less than four years just isn’t physically possible. Congress does this all the time, and it typically doesn’t take it four years to go into effect.
Suppose that for whatever reason the bill doesn’t get passed until next year. Presumably the bill then wouldn’t go into effect until 2014, because it’s just not possible to put it in place before then, right?
Blackadder, you certainly raise interesting questions. I think, though, that it’s pretty heartless to use those questions as an attempt to distract from or belittle the moral point that this video is trying to make.
Well, let’s look at some numbers…how long had it taken, say, single-payer systems to be implemented from the moment the requisite legislation for establishment were passed in other countries? Which countries took less time to radically alter their health care systems? Would these instances make for good comparisons given that the U.S. is not moving toward a single-payer and its health care system currently has entrenched insurance bureaucracies? In other words, can we really draw such comparisons if the conditions for implementation are not similar? Does a slumping economy have an effect on the speed of implementation? Is a comparison with the issuance of Medicare cards in the 1960′s with the implementation of insurance laws and a complete public option in 2013 really that enlightening?
These are only starting questions, but they should be asked and answered before one swiftly claims that implementation is being delayed strictly for election reasons. Moreover, the claim that this specific health care plan can be implemented in considerably less time than four years needs a bit more defense besides swift references to other countries and to the 1960′s. Perhaps we can go step by step with specific time-frame estimates for each step instead of resting on blanket judgments.
More than 3 million people will have declared bankruptcy due to medical bills by the time this is implemented. It will be 4 years too late for those folks.
If the plan includes funding for abortion then it is unacceptable and the insistence that it be included is the real tragedy. Perhaps if it were ommited a plan that provides decent preventive care and necessary treatment could be achieved. Probably not.