Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Sunday, August 09, 2009

Does anything really change?

Politics
the problem is politics
or politics is the problem?
This is about the question of political differences
*she says tongue in cheek*
between our two parties...
or are there any?

For part of George Bush's time in office, many Republicans had to wonder what had happened to their party. Fighting a war overseas when the United States had no national interests isn't exactly conservative. Adding a huge entitlement to Medicare for prescription drugs isn't exactly conservative. Oh that was for the seniors, beloved elders... except why block negotiating for drug prices to keep the costs down? What about allowing citizens to buy drugs online and get them from say Canada? Who really profited from that entitlement being added? Check where the money went and I think you will know.

Bank bailouts wasn't conservative either. The debt, for a war that wasn't on the books but had to be paid for someday, skyrocketed but only now do Republican politicians seem to be voting against it. Earlier they might have lamented but they voted for whatever their party wanted all the time some of them might privately have wondered who their party was.

Now it's our turn as Democrats. We have the power... or do we? Who actually runs things in Washington? Do we have two parties in name only and if that is the case, what can we do about it?

So let's see how we are doing with the goals we had... get out of Iraq... not yet. Close Gitmo... might take awhile. Logging in wilderness areas... need the logs or the jobs.

What about health care and things like allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices? *taking deep breaths to lower my blood pressure* It came out this week that Obama made a secret (well not too secret since it's out now) deal with big pharmaceutical to not bargain for drugs and not allow citizens to buy them in Canada in exchange for a supposed $90 billion cut in prices over 10 years and their support of the health care package. Does that $90 billion even cover inflation?

He needed their support, he would say. Really? He did? But at the price of making the deal into a disaster for costs? Right at the moment, it's beginning to look like what we have is a guarantee everyone has to buy insurance or have it bought for them but not sure exactly who will pay the cost.

Did you know that Cobra (government health insurance guarantees after loss of a job) is now affordable? Thanks to the Stimulus bill, it is 35% of what the actual cost is. Guess who pays the other 65%. You thought the government. Well, yes, they do eventually but in the short run, it's the business, who was employing the person when they had to either lay them off or fire them. The business will get it back at the end of the calendar year. That sounds good except a lot of small businesses are operating on a slim margin and if they had to lay someone off, they might barely be making it. So now they have to pay that Cobra cost which they will get back if their business lasts that long-- assuming the government then has the money to pay them.

It's the details like this that I feel we have to notice regarding health care and what comes out eventually. A lot of it never makes the newspapers and you only know it if you know people being impacted. Unless the health care industry is truly reined in for costs, this will be hugely profitable from them all.

Some say progressives are making too much over the public option. That it doesn't matter since prices will come down. Except how much will they really come down? Like the drug companies deal? So if everyone has to have insurance but the prices don't come down, it looks to me like it will be a continuation of the 400% increase in profits the health insurance companies made during the last 8 years-- you know while the rest of us were taking considerable cuts in our savings and our jobs.

So that's why I have to ask and think we all need to ask-- does anything really change when a new party takes power? Some say it's always been run by behind the scenes corporate masters. Is that the case? If it is, then you Republicans don't have the answer in your party and neither do we Democrats. Who does?

It's true that six months isn't enough to know about Obama. He has always said it's about the long run, but... Well, we need to keep track and not think that whatever our side does is okay because the other side is so bad! The other side has been so bad, but that won't automatically make us good. That comes out of real policy changes-- meaningful ones.

Frank Rich had a good column on this where he said the real question isn't whether Obama is a socialist, it's is he really walking any different path than George Bush: Frank Rich-- Is Obama punking us?.

I wanted a picture for this of the sheep at the big hay bale. It would have been perfect with their little butts pointed outward and heads down, but unfortunately they were taking their morning nap by the time I got the camera out. Maybe I can add it later...

2 comments:

Peggy said...

Rain;

Great post, very thought provoking for me.
I think nothing really changes, business as usual. When each party is campaigning, they vow to change...then we all wait with baited breath and nothing really happens...
I don't think we(American people)expect much to be accomplished in only six months. I know I don't.
I do expect careful spending of our taxes without trying to ram these plans down our throats .
I guess I don't trust politicians at all these days. So when the 2010 elections come, I will clean house with my vote. It's only one vote but it's all I have!
Love your ideas Rain, thank you for always probing our brains.

Dick said...

I agree with Peggy that you've made a good, thought provoking post. I tried to attend a Town Hall meeting yesterday with our Congressional Representative but, even though I arrived ahead of it starting, there was no room at the inn. Last night the Seattle TV stations covered it, saying the room it was held in could hold 250 but there were 3 to 5 times that many, all the others outside listening over a speaker system. To his credit, the politician did come out and take questions from those outside too.

He is warning that what comes out will not satisfy anyone totally and that is probably right. I remember AARP being bad mouthed for supporting RX coverage in Medicare the way it was written. They said then that while it wasn't perfect it was at least a start. There had been many tries to do something in the past and their fear, probably right, was that if this opportunity were passed up it might be years before another opportunity came up. Better to get something that was less than perfect and then work to improve it. I guess that makes sense and maybe this will be like that. We will see.