Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Why don't you think Coburn was proposing these amendments a year or six months ago?

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

I'd like to see the states being a larger part of the solution, but don't believe a problem such as this can really be solved without Federal action. There's just no way the states could prioritize and coordinate activities in a meaningful manner...

The States can create "programs" that suit the specific needs of their citizens. And they can be "models" for each other. And failures can be FAR more easily corrected at State levels than national. State legislators have to be more responsive to their constituents. Those national congressional representatives all come from the States. They don't magically get smarter or more competent when they put on federal suits. If anything, they become more contentious and obstructive.

Generally, I'd agree with the position taken by those pragmatic Brits at the Economist.

That:

A) A country as wealthy as the US should have affordable care available to everyone

"Wealth" is class warfare code for "shame on you." Our health care, pre the BILL, is better than Britain's, so poo on their opinion.

and

B) That this bill, crappy as it is, is a necessary motivator to drive the follow-on solutions to better address the root causes of the issue.

Gobbledegook.

That doing nothing is actually worse, as it will delay the action and let the problems fester. That being said, the bill in it's current state will not adequately address the issue.

Nobody says do nothing. Things have been evolving for a long time. Things have been, and are being tried. Festering is a good motivator to cure. A bad "cure" is often fatal and can delay real progress.

The bill as passed can accommodate for tort reform and state competition in the future. I fully expect these initiatives to be incorporated in the next 5 years.

-spence

Good luck with that.