by David Safier
Kudos to Giffords for taking such a public stand saying she plans to vote for the House health care bill Saturday. She could try and do it quietly. Instead, she's making the case for her vote in today's Star.
I have to admit, I don't know all the details of the House bill, so I'm not going to analyze Giffords' comments about the specifics of the legislation. But I do know enough to say that I support this kind of language:
It was 45 years ago that Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 — a historic measure that for the first time outlawed all racial segregation in schools, public places and employment. We are poised to make another historic decision that for the first time would guarantee access to health care for all Americans.
[snip]
Since elected to Congress in 2006, I have voted on thousands of bills. Most have been easy, some have been hard. Providing affordable, quality health care to all American citizens without adding a dime to the deficit will be one of the most historic actions Congress has taken.
Like the Civil Rights Act of a generation ago, the Affordable Health Care for America Act has ignited passionate debate in Arizona and across the country. It is a debate worth having. But like the debate of 45 years ago, I believe this will be a defining moment of equality in America.
I wrote in an earlier post about the upcoming 2010 campaigns, Democrats need to stand for something. They need to define themselves, or their opponents will do it for them. Giffords is presenting us with a good example. She's making a strong public statement of principle. She'll certainly get flak for it, but she's defining herself and setting the terms of the argument. Even those who disagree will have to admit, she's showing that she has a backbone.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a government run, single payer system which covers all Congresspersons and all Federal Employees and all Federal retirees with at least five years of service who wish to retain their coverage in retirement. It is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I am not aware of any Congressperson who opts out of this plan.
I am an 81 year old woman with no health care horror stories. My primary care physician in Maryland, a staunch Republican, said 10 years ago, that he wished the Federal Government had a single payer plan for everyone for two reasons: his administrative costs for dealing with umpteen insurance companies and knowing what each one covered were unsustainable. Also, he was sick and tired of being told how to care for his patients by these companies. Practicing in the Washington, DC area, a large proportion of his patients were either Federal employees or retirees and he had personal experience with the difference between dealing with the government run, single payer program.
My primary care physician, here, in Tucson, has a sign on his desk: Single Payer Now. My cardiologist told me he spends untold hours lobbying for the government run, single payer program to be passed by Congress. In fact, I have seen both of them at meetings supporting the single payer program. This is admittedly a very small sample – but so is Finklestein! By the way, my cardiologist practices at a Carondolet hospital!
You are entitled to your own opinion. What you are not entitled to is your own facts.
One reason why I don’t support this bill is that I have a very, very hard time believing that a government law proposing to pay for health care for millions of people doesn’t have a cost and in fact will reduce overall deficit by $10 billion dollars a year ($100 over 10 years). Providing health care costs money and to be told that this law is going to reduce the deficit means it is going to raise taxes and America doesn’t want nor need that, now or ever.
Further Gifford’s claim “that it includes tort reform initiatives that offer incentives to states that implement changes to traditional medical-malpractice laws”. Why is the federal government mandating tort reform on the states? Why do the states need to be bribed by the feds to change their laws? If the changes aren’t a good idea outright why should the federal government coerce the states into those changes.
The federal government is doing a poor enough job already it should not be trying to add one more program to its plate.
Just say no to more government programs.
http://KrugmanCareGoodFreedomBadBadBad.tk/
The best program to improve the economy and reduce physical and mental injuries would be to get the US Army out of Japan, South Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://GetAPlan.tk/