It would be nice if everyone in the U.S. had entirely adequate healthcare. No question about it. It would be nice, as well, if everyone in the U.S. had a 2013 Mercedes Benz.
One contributes to a dignity of life and the other is excessive.
The real question is what it would take to provide a reasonable degree of access to what is, in truth, a scarce resource. There are lot of promising answers to that, but none is in Obamacare.
Obamacare does not provide complete healthcare, nor does it protect conscience. First of all, it gives incredible power to the executive (Obama, Sebelius) to determine virtually everything. To imagine that he will not use it to promote abortion, contraceptives, other violations of conscience, is simply wishful thinking. He has already demonstrated that. He admits that 20 million will have no coverage. The CBO estimates 30 million. Obamacare takes 700 billion out of Medicare. Not all Medicare recipients are poor, but many are. Obamacare dumps 17 million additional people onto Medicaid, which is already overcrowded with the result that doctors limit the number of Medicaid people they will see already.
All Obamacare is, is a device to force one segment of the middle class to subsidize another segment of the middle class which, in itself, might be illusory because premiums for both are going up a lot due to mandates.
So, with Obamacare and Obama, we got total disruption in healthcare, abandonment of many of the elderly, 20 or 30 million not covered, and the president with plenery and unobstructed power to fund abortions as much as he wants to.
Failure, total and complete.
Let’s stop talking Obamacare and speak of American healthcare for all. There are models in the world today, but it costs money. Can we see past the money and seek it on the merits of giving a dignity of life to all?
Republicans don’t address the other issues in ways that are desirable to the majority of citizens. That’s a reality. I believe some evidence can be seen in the issue of immigration in relation to the way Hispanics voted.
I believe Americans are not as far right, or as far left, as the few who make the decisions. We are choosing the closest, with neither making an acceptable delivery because of the extremes.
You make some good points with the posts on Bush vs. Obama, but remember Bush never said he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy and change the view as his political aspirations changed. Then one still has the question referencing Bush, ‘why wasn’t it brought before the supreme court, if that is the most effective way to combat abortion?’ He still allowed RU486 to be sold to the US by the Chinese, even after the product had tainted problems that cost several women their life. It appears to be politically motivated, but I cannot say for sure why. Instead of going on and on, I’ll summarize by saying, some things were done, but the motivations can be questioned; e.g. money vs result, or an appearance of accomplishment without a full commitment to keep an issue ‘alive’. Then back to my original point, we were talking about Romney and not Bush.
I didn’t vote for either one, and am not sorry for it. I think both sides are too far out, and promoting that outside the medium that needs be addressed to reach the most favorable response. I am pro life, supporter of DOMA, and for religious liberties. I also believe if other countries can do it, we can find a way to provide healthcare to all our citizens. I believe government can provide social assistance in conjunction with our private charities. I believe Social Security is not an entitlement, but a promised future return. I believe the wealthy can pay an equal percentage to what others pay. I believe this country was built by immigrants and cannot limit immigration based on one’s ability to pay.
This would be a time to discuss the other issues, if we truly want them set aside, with some confidence, for non negotiable issues prior to the next election. Through example, isn’t this when people can prove the priorities of issues through concessions of the other issues?
