"Too many cooks spoil the broth"; caught "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue sea", and a few such sayings have appeared lately in the news media, including the Internet blogs, of course; yet, they must not be applicable to what the White House is experiencing at the present moment, with the comings and goings of important personalities, from both military and civil sectors of American society, because everything there seems to be normal and under control.
All that is to do with President Obama's decision to increase troop levels in the Afghan war theater; either to go with the advise of his National Security Council or to approve a new counterinsurgency strategy, as proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top military commanding officer in Afghanistan.
Public polls have been taken to measure the sentiment that dealt with how the president was moving to handle the situation, with several figures showing his approval rating dwindling; such as, "Nearly half of Americans surveyed, 47 percent, now say the war has not been worth fighting, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. And the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan brings the same stark divide: 47 percent of Americans favor a surge, while a sliver more – 49 percent -- say no.". Yet, the Afghan war is a necessity, for reasons like the 9/11 attacks on mainland America.
As polls are as useful for measuring what is popular and what is not, not all decisions can be based on them; and whatever good works the ABC and Washington Post poll and others intend to achieve, that will be to the anticipation of their readers and viewers.
Nevertheless, it was obvious that, the many consultations with high ranking military officers and civilian experts taking place at the White House, the only sure action that would come out to really have any bearing on the war would be choosing the only one advise that was more practical than all the others; and that should be what the president should be looking for.
He was not sending men and women into battle, just for the sake of doing so; but that they were to have the most salient plan that would ensure their own safety on the battlefield, and to be victorious, in the final analysis; with the most minimum of casualties, if there should be any.
All presidents vow to protect the United States; a sacred oath invoked in the Constitution; and therefore, it becomes incumbent on the current occupier of the White House to insist on what tangible material he may need to undertake that oath. However, most people will agree that the numerous forms of advise given the president in recent weeks, will all have to be weighed on their merits; from the advise in McChrystal's report through to the one given him by Senator John Kerry on his return from Afghanistan, and that of Vice President Joe Biden, respectively.
Needless to say that all that advise will come to naught, if the president fails to choose what will work for the soldiers who are actually facing the onslaught of the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants; and if something is not done to put them in the reverse, they are bound to gain advantage in controlling events, and certainly the outcome of the war.
The decision is a really tough one to make from all the versions of advise the president has received; but let us imagine that he will make a fruitful and a satisfactory one, to the expectation of a hopeful nation; with the most serious consideration for the men and women in uniform, who are fighting to protect the United States, in mind. They want to win; and given what they want, they will win.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
CHANGE AND HEALTH CARE REFORM.
What does change demand? It demands, contribution, cooperation and sacrifice. Change is not an empty notion; it requires practicability, patience and bold decisions.
These are some of the connotations of change; and who are liable to know that more than the regular folk? It has to be politicians who are always invoking change. They do so to alter situations and conditions; to renew or refurbish institutions, and to clear up and resolve problems.
The reaction to it (change) always varies, which can involve acceptance, rejection and failure for lack of conviction. Sometimes it is met with mixed feelings, of anger on one hand and elation on the other; or abstention or complete objection to it. Change is not as cheap a commodity as we are led to believe in some instances, in terms of it being expensive and costly. It is like buying a new house; it must cost a lot of money, naturally. It can also be provocative, satisfactory or indifferent at times, but of course, never, never confusing.
All that does not define the word "change" itself. It is a group of qualifications or excesses that tend to bring out its true meaning; thus giving the inquisitor an ample opportunity to know what it (change) stands for. So that, when people fail to grasp or understand its purpose, one is bound to ask the question, why?
The health care reform or overhaul has captured the imagination of people from all walks of life; politicians, doctors, industrial manufacturers, union workers, retirees, housewives, the rich and the poor. Yet, its underlying factor, which is its purpose or its usefulness is creating problems for even the well educated; however, the simple fact is that, if it is to serve the needs of society, then its outcome must affect everyone. In some instances, it can be in the form of high taxes or skyrocketing costs or a new approach in dealing with, for example, Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers or insurance premiums and how to keep them from going through the roof or Insurance corporations to conform to new rules to effectively regulate them or the replacement of old and antiquated health insurance plans that have to be thrown out of the window; etc., etc.
The complexity of the health care system cannot be overemphasized, but its exercise is one that is directed toward helping the weak, the disabled and the sick in society, and so, it must be reformed for it to function as properly as it has to be. In other words, it (system) has to be able to perform well.
Children, pregnant women and frail, old people must be considered; big and small hospitals and health facilities have to have financing for development; to be able to carry out renovation, depending on the state they are in; and more.
A host of activities must take place in the system; all leading to how a community can remain healthy and disease free. To say that, a healthy community is a happy community will be an understatement. On a national basis, the scenario is also applicable.
That is what most lawmakers in Congress are aiming to do; however, some are just being hypocritical and remain on the side that has nothing realistic to offer, but sheer criticism. Public Option, we are told, will cripple the private sector of the health care industry, and that it will be hard for the remnant of it to compete with a government run insurance provider. Whether that is true or not is still a moot point; yet, change must come.
To the understanding of many people, taking part in it (PO) will not be mandatory; it will be open for states to hop in or out, if that is what they intend doing. Tax payer money for abortion, which is aberrant to some states, will require a clause of some kind to prevent it. Illegal aliens to have access to social services and even qualify for welfare payments must not be allowed to happen; and only the ironing out of such problems is what is left. Yet, some Congress men and women are being adamant in accepting that there is a need for change for the American health care recipient.
The proposals that have come out of the House of Representatives, as announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, carry hopeful signs of progress, that a final House bill is the works, which will eventually compare, side by side, with one that will come out of the Senate. It will then require a joint committee to find the pitfalls and obstacles in each one and level them out; at which point, a consensus will be reached for a final bill to pass in both Houses for President Obama to sign into law.
Through the democratic process, the nation will have a "Clean Bill of Health" care reform to cater to the need of all Americans; and that will be the change that we all want. Therefore, all must contribute, all must cooperate, all must sacrifice to a common cause; for without that, the chaos of the status quo will continue.
These are some of the connotations of change; and who are liable to know that more than the regular folk? It has to be politicians who are always invoking change. They do so to alter situations and conditions; to renew or refurbish institutions, and to clear up and resolve problems.
The reaction to it (change) always varies, which can involve acceptance, rejection and failure for lack of conviction. Sometimes it is met with mixed feelings, of anger on one hand and elation on the other; or abstention or complete objection to it. Change is not as cheap a commodity as we are led to believe in some instances, in terms of it being expensive and costly. It is like buying a new house; it must cost a lot of money, naturally. It can also be provocative, satisfactory or indifferent at times, but of course, never, never confusing.
All that does not define the word "change" itself. It is a group of qualifications or excesses that tend to bring out its true meaning; thus giving the inquisitor an ample opportunity to know what it (change) stands for. So that, when people fail to grasp or understand its purpose, one is bound to ask the question, why?
The health care reform or overhaul has captured the imagination of people from all walks of life; politicians, doctors, industrial manufacturers, union workers, retirees, housewives, the rich and the poor. Yet, its underlying factor, which is its purpose or its usefulness is creating problems for even the well educated; however, the simple fact is that, if it is to serve the needs of society, then its outcome must affect everyone. In some instances, it can be in the form of high taxes or skyrocketing costs or a new approach in dealing with, for example, Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers or insurance premiums and how to keep them from going through the roof or Insurance corporations to conform to new rules to effectively regulate them or the replacement of old and antiquated health insurance plans that have to be thrown out of the window; etc., etc.
The complexity of the health care system cannot be overemphasized, but its exercise is one that is directed toward helping the weak, the disabled and the sick in society, and so, it must be reformed for it to function as properly as it has to be. In other words, it (system) has to be able to perform well.
Children, pregnant women and frail, old people must be considered; big and small hospitals and health facilities have to have financing for development; to be able to carry out renovation, depending on the state they are in; and more.
A host of activities must take place in the system; all leading to how a community can remain healthy and disease free. To say that, a healthy community is a happy community will be an understatement. On a national basis, the scenario is also applicable.
That is what most lawmakers in Congress are aiming to do; however, some are just being hypocritical and remain on the side that has nothing realistic to offer, but sheer criticism. Public Option, we are told, will cripple the private sector of the health care industry, and that it will be hard for the remnant of it to compete with a government run insurance provider. Whether that is true or not is still a moot point; yet, change must come.
To the understanding of many people, taking part in it (PO) will not be mandatory; it will be open for states to hop in or out, if that is what they intend doing. Tax payer money for abortion, which is aberrant to some states, will require a clause of some kind to prevent it. Illegal aliens to have access to social services and even qualify for welfare payments must not be allowed to happen; and only the ironing out of such problems is what is left. Yet, some Congress men and women are being adamant in accepting that there is a need for change for the American health care recipient.
The proposals that have come out of the House of Representatives, as announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, carry hopeful signs of progress, that a final House bill is the works, which will eventually compare, side by side, with one that will come out of the Senate. It will then require a joint committee to find the pitfalls and obstacles in each one and level them out; at which point, a consensus will be reached for a final bill to pass in both Houses for President Obama to sign into law.
Through the democratic process, the nation will have a "Clean Bill of Health" care reform to cater to the need of all Americans; and that will be the change that we all want. Therefore, all must contribute, all must cooperate, all must sacrifice to a common cause; for without that, the chaos of the status quo will continue.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
OBAMA: MORE TROOPS AND HEALTH CARE REFORM.
There are many things weighing on the minds of Americans more now than ever, but the most important of them are the war in Afghanistan and the Health Care reform or the general overhaul of it. Many are waiting anxiously to see how they will be handled by the Obama administration, to be able to assess its ability to function effectively under stress, as those two issues have become strenuous problems for the government. They amount to a pivotal, as well as a testing point.
In fact, the combined test is about whether the request for more troops to Afghanistan will be agreed to by the administration, and the concern for Public Option to be accepted as part of any health care plan that Congress will pass. Both have sparked lively debates around the country, and are preoccupying the time of most people who, under normal circumstances, will not show much interest in national affairs, because politics tend to be, in general, an anathema to them.
Yet, one of these issues is about the national security of the United States, from an insurgency that is causing a threat to democracy everywhere, with the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks in mind, to booth; and the other concerns the health care of the nation, comprised of individual people and their families. So, therefore, they (issues) demand critical thinking for the right decisions to be made by the government.
That is what is happening in Washington today; but it (Washington) is also caught up in the usual politics, so much so that, if the government is not careful, the wrong decisions will be made.
Most people think that the diluting of the demand of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for more troops to the Afghan war front, for one, and the pushing out of Public Option from any health care plan, for another, will both be a mistake.
As on one hand, the general knows how a war, which he and his soldiers are involved in must be fought, and the counterinsurgency plan that must be put forth to bring success to himself and his troops; while on the other hand, so much opposing advise is being given to President Obama to shunt the general's request.
On health care, no plan can be used to satisfy all factions to the debate; however, to rule Public Option out of any final plan will not achieve the objective of having a real reform in the health care system. Most people will be left to their own devices to find some form of "coverage". In other words, they will either be forced to swamp the Emergency Rooms in the already crowded hospitals across the country, or buy insurance at cut-throat prices, if they can get it. Others will not be able to afford any type of premium that will be imposed on them.
Both situations therefore need the solemn consideration on the part of President Obama to come to the decisions that will help the whole nation to pass the stressful test that its people and government are facing together at the present moment. The hope is that, he will do so by choosing the correct advise, in both cases. Americans must not be allowed to remain in a state of desperation; no, not for too long.
In fact, the combined test is about whether the request for more troops to Afghanistan will be agreed to by the administration, and the concern for Public Option to be accepted as part of any health care plan that Congress will pass. Both have sparked lively debates around the country, and are preoccupying the time of most people who, under normal circumstances, will not show much interest in national affairs, because politics tend to be, in general, an anathema to them.
Yet, one of these issues is about the national security of the United States, from an insurgency that is causing a threat to democracy everywhere, with the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks in mind, to booth; and the other concerns the health care of the nation, comprised of individual people and their families. So, therefore, they (issues) demand critical thinking for the right decisions to be made by the government.
That is what is happening in Washington today; but it (Washington) is also caught up in the usual politics, so much so that, if the government is not careful, the wrong decisions will be made.
Most people think that the diluting of the demand of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for more troops to the Afghan war front, for one, and the pushing out of Public Option from any health care plan, for another, will both be a mistake.
As on one hand, the general knows how a war, which he and his soldiers are involved in must be fought, and the counterinsurgency plan that must be put forth to bring success to himself and his troops; while on the other hand, so much opposing advise is being given to President Obama to shunt the general's request.
On health care, no plan can be used to satisfy all factions to the debate; however, to rule Public Option out of any final plan will not achieve the objective of having a real reform in the health care system. Most people will be left to their own devices to find some form of "coverage". In other words, they will either be forced to swamp the Emergency Rooms in the already crowded hospitals across the country, or buy insurance at cut-throat prices, if they can get it. Others will not be able to afford any type of premium that will be imposed on them.
Both situations therefore need the solemn consideration on the part of President Obama to come to the decisions that will help the whole nation to pass the stressful test that its people and government are facing together at the present moment. The hope is that, he will do so by choosing the correct advise, in both cases. Americans must not be allowed to remain in a state of desperation; no, not for too long.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
RUSH WHO AND WHO AND WHO AND WHO.
The idea that the White House is attacking personalities and FOX News is not true; it is the other way around; and as each day goes by, the opponents of any health care plan that will include "Public Option" attempt to crowd Americans with bad news about it. The bad news being cooked up by members of the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce and the Insurance companies, using a media outlet to inflict damage on any type of reform that will curtail the hold the insurance companies have on the health care industry.
First, it is reported that the profit margin of insurance companies happens to be less than that of other industries, making it 2.2% in 2008; yet, the report fails to mention the salaries of top officials in that industry in its (report's) tabulations, which go to drastically reduce profits.
Just this morning, it is a Sen. Tom Coburn, who has written a column on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, and making sure that the confusion of the American public continues.
The senator has written, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's failed attempt last week to round up enough votes to pass a $247 billion plan to shield doctors from steep Medicare cuts shows the administration needs to get serious about the deficit -- and lay off its critics."
Just take a look at the mixture in that statement alone. It has the "Cost, Medicare cuts, Deficit, Critics" all jumbled into one; and it clearly shows that Sen. Tom Coburn's column is designed, not only to generate confusion into the minds of its readers, but also to inject distilled information into the debate on health care reform.
To many people, what the Obama admintration staff is saying is that, they know where the opposition is coming from (as mentioned elsewhere in this article), and that its (opposition's) campaign to sink "public option" is being trumpeted by FOX News. If so, then the administration has every right to point out these organizations and individuals who are behind the attempts to sabotage something that will go a long way to benefit a whole lot of people.
Most of us are "old codgers", and so, if Medicare is affected by Senator Reid's plan, pull that part and bring it into the open and straighten it out; if abortion is not wanted in the plan, do the same with it; and so on and so on. For a thorough debate to take place, and Congress men and women getting rid of their own prejudices, as for example, that competition will stifle the insurance industry, there will be no real health care reform; and certainly, not when the Chamber of Commerce and the insurance companies are pumping so much money into Washington (D.C.), by way of the lobbyists, to influence votes in Congress.
Whoever these people are, Rush who and who and who and who; get them all out of Obama's hair. FOX News, be a real news gathering organization and stop being a mouth piece of the Republican Party (....as you have been).
That is what the White House is saying.
P.S. This blog is not a mouth piece of, or for anybody, group or organization; particularly, not for the WH.
First, it is reported that the profit margin of insurance companies happens to be less than that of other industries, making it 2.2% in 2008; yet, the report fails to mention the salaries of top officials in that industry in its (report's) tabulations, which go to drastically reduce profits.
Just this morning, it is a Sen. Tom Coburn, who has written a column on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, and making sure that the confusion of the American public continues.
The senator has written, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's failed attempt last week to round up enough votes to pass a $247 billion plan to shield doctors from steep Medicare cuts shows the administration needs to get serious about the deficit -- and lay off its critics."
Just take a look at the mixture in that statement alone. It has the "Cost, Medicare cuts, Deficit, Critics" all jumbled into one; and it clearly shows that Sen. Tom Coburn's column is designed, not only to generate confusion into the minds of its readers, but also to inject distilled information into the debate on health care reform.
To many people, what the Obama admintration staff is saying is that, they know where the opposition is coming from (as mentioned elsewhere in this article), and that its (opposition's) campaign to sink "public option" is being trumpeted by FOX News. If so, then the administration has every right to point out these organizations and individuals who are behind the attempts to sabotage something that will go a long way to benefit a whole lot of people.
Most of us are "old codgers", and so, if Medicare is affected by Senator Reid's plan, pull that part and bring it into the open and straighten it out; if abortion is not wanted in the plan, do the same with it; and so on and so on. For a thorough debate to take place, and Congress men and women getting rid of their own prejudices, as for example, that competition will stifle the insurance industry, there will be no real health care reform; and certainly, not when the Chamber of Commerce and the insurance companies are pumping so much money into Washington (D.C.), by way of the lobbyists, to influence votes in Congress.
Whoever these people are, Rush who and who and who and who; get them all out of Obama's hair. FOX News, be a real news gathering organization and stop being a mouth piece of the Republican Party (....as you have been).
That is what the White House is saying.
P.S. This blog is not a mouth piece of, or for anybody, group or organization; particularly, not for the WH.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
OBAMA'S TOUGH DECISION.
There is no doubt that President Obama is, as accused by former Vice President Dick Cheney, "Dithering"; and that the president himself cannot reach a decision on the increased troops in Afghanistan, until probably there is a clear winner from the presidential runoff election there. (...and "Dithering" is too strong a word; there is no need for it. Apologies to Mr. Cheney).
From one perspective, both men seem to be right, as the president has the obligation to make a decision that will be deemed as far reaching, in responding to Gen. McChrystal's request, and also in order not to offend his own political base at home; yet, time is a-going, and therefore, there is no way that he can hesitate any longer than it is necessary, to make one.
The situation will be confusing, even when you have the best political and military advise at your disposal, as the president has; but there is an ongoing war that must be fought, willy nilly, by the United States and its allies, composed of NATO members; and he (Obama) must now be between "the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea", so to speak.
Then comes a "fresh" statement by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, saying that the general's proposed demand to send at least 40000 additional U.S. combat troops to the Afghan war "reaches too far, too fast", among other things. His (Chairman's) report is based on his own observations from his most recent visit to the war zone; and that must also be taken into serious consideration.
Yet, that report, however pertinent, seems to look more into the future, that the "assurance that the Afghan forces are reliable enough to partner with U.S. troops, assistance from the country's local leaders, and the cooperation and the support of the Afghan people.", falls short of what must be done immediately to reverse the trend of the war; and although, it (statement) does not "throw a spanner in the works", it does not defuse the situation either; no, not very much at all.
The other perspective will be for the president to agree with the general to quickly send added troops to forestall the course of how the war is proceeding, which is the "immediate" assessment of the commanding general of U.S. forces "on the spot" in that country; and then find time to consider the effects of some social, political and economic engagement programs for the Afghan people that will galvanize support for the war; which will be in the "immediate future", counting on his luck for that to ever happen.
As far as when will the Afghan forces be "reliable enough to partner with U.S. troops" is concerned, the question is inconsequential. They are still being trained; and that the training is bound to take some ample length of time.
Nevertheless, it is the urgency of the matter that his opponents are talking about, that the Taliban and Al Qaeda will not wait to unleash their venomous arsenal on the U.S. and allied troops and rout them, instead of the other way around. Arsenal, like suicide bombings, road-side bombings, random attacks and ambushes; they do not take too long to prepare; and so, if he continues to "dither", particularly on the suggestions of the "Chairman", the enemy will have the advantage to control events on the ground.
Any way the president looks at the war in Afghanistan, he has to come up a decision; one that will be showing that he has confidence in the men and women of the military who are staking their lives out to protect and defend the United States; one that will not be a burden on them; one that will not keep them waiting; one that will give them the advantage instead. Their sacrifice is not one to haggle over or bargain with; their lives matter most to the country and to their families.
He must make a strong decision, however tough it may be; if not, his own prestige will be on the line. It will suffer the most, and not that of his critics.
From one perspective, both men seem to be right, as the president has the obligation to make a decision that will be deemed as far reaching, in responding to Gen. McChrystal's request, and also in order not to offend his own political base at home; yet, time is a-going, and therefore, there is no way that he can hesitate any longer than it is necessary, to make one.
The situation will be confusing, even when you have the best political and military advise at your disposal, as the president has; but there is an ongoing war that must be fought, willy nilly, by the United States and its allies, composed of NATO members; and he (Obama) must now be between "the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea", so to speak.
Then comes a "fresh" statement by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, saying that the general's proposed demand to send at least 40000 additional U.S. combat troops to the Afghan war "reaches too far, too fast", among other things. His (Chairman's) report is based on his own observations from his most recent visit to the war zone; and that must also be taken into serious consideration.
Yet, that report, however pertinent, seems to look more into the future, that the "assurance that the Afghan forces are reliable enough to partner with U.S. troops, assistance from the country's local leaders, and the cooperation and the support of the Afghan people.", falls short of what must be done immediately to reverse the trend of the war; and although, it (statement) does not "throw a spanner in the works", it does not defuse the situation either; no, not very much at all.
The other perspective will be for the president to agree with the general to quickly send added troops to forestall the course of how the war is proceeding, which is the "immediate" assessment of the commanding general of U.S. forces "on the spot" in that country; and then find time to consider the effects of some social, political and economic engagement programs for the Afghan people that will galvanize support for the war; which will be in the "immediate future", counting on his luck for that to ever happen.
As far as when will the Afghan forces be "reliable enough to partner with U.S. troops" is concerned, the question is inconsequential. They are still being trained; and that the training is bound to take some ample length of time.
Nevertheless, it is the urgency of the matter that his opponents are talking about, that the Taliban and Al Qaeda will not wait to unleash their venomous arsenal on the U.S. and allied troops and rout them, instead of the other way around. Arsenal, like suicide bombings, road-side bombings, random attacks and ambushes; they do not take too long to prepare; and so, if he continues to "dither", particularly on the suggestions of the "Chairman", the enemy will have the advantage to control events on the ground.
Any way the president looks at the war in Afghanistan, he has to come up a decision; one that will be showing that he has confidence in the men and women of the military who are staking their lives out to protect and defend the United States; one that will not be a burden on them; one that will not keep them waiting; one that will give them the advantage instead. Their sacrifice is not one to haggle over or bargain with; their lives matter most to the country and to their families.
He must make a strong decision, however tough it may be; if not, his own prestige will be on the line. It will suffer the most, and not that of his critics.
Monday, October 26, 2009
SENATOR REID'S PLAN.
It looks like the Public Option portion of the future health care insurance plans for Americans will live to see the light of day once again; as Capitol Hill is agog with the news that Majority leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, is close to getting the 60 votes that will allow a final bill to materialize.
He has been "working the phones and, behind closed doors, trying to meld together five bills. And he is resurrecting the "public option" to compete with private insurance.", according to ABC News. Such piece of news would gladden many hearts, as they would be able to get insurance coverage plans, which would emanate from a real non-profit source, the government.
With a no profit government program involved, prices could be standardized, as the charges of corporate insurance companies would be forced to reflect those of public option plans, for sheer comparison, if nothing else; and although, people did not want a free health care plan, as that would seem like a handout, they knew that they could choose from a spate of plans, whether they were private or government sponsored, depending on their income and/or budget.
That would enable the overall cost of health care to fall, and it would also make health care affordable as it should be. Although, the word "Universal" has not been used by lawmakers, in connection with any of the health care reforms, the idea of what was being referred to as "the option-option" would emerge as the final bill, and it would have a choice clause inserted in it; permitting States to stay in Public Option plans or to have the one that suited them. Thus merging five health care reform bills into one to make that choice available to all, so that everybody would eventually be covered, either by private insurers or the government.
The competition is what most people are afraid of, calling it an incursion of "big and powerful" government into private enterprise, which does not fit the spirit of capitalists America. However, the present state of affairs do not also suit the poor, people with pre-existing conditions, and over 40 to 50 million others who have no insurance coverage of any kind, presently or in the past.
Senator Harry Reid's plan, if it prevails, will be somewhat universal; and it will be like a very heavy burden being lifted off the shoulders of a whole lot of people, making it possible for them to show up at their own doctors' offices, instead of hospital emergency rooms, where, in some cases, they will remain unattended for hours.
The scenario can be one in which both the patients and the doctors in the ERs are "tired", and yet, they are forced to meet each other. In those kinds of situations, reforms are needed in the United States health care system, and Public Option must be part of that system, however hard the anti-public option element in society will howl.
He has been "working the phones and, behind closed doors, trying to meld together five bills. And he is resurrecting the "public option" to compete with private insurance.", according to ABC News. Such piece of news would gladden many hearts, as they would be able to get insurance coverage plans, which would emanate from a real non-profit source, the government.
With a no profit government program involved, prices could be standardized, as the charges of corporate insurance companies would be forced to reflect those of public option plans, for sheer comparison, if nothing else; and although, people did not want a free health care plan, as that would seem like a handout, they knew that they could choose from a spate of plans, whether they were private or government sponsored, depending on their income and/or budget.
That would enable the overall cost of health care to fall, and it would also make health care affordable as it should be. Although, the word "Universal" has not been used by lawmakers, in connection with any of the health care reforms, the idea of what was being referred to as "the option-option" would emerge as the final bill, and it would have a choice clause inserted in it; permitting States to stay in Public Option plans or to have the one that suited them. Thus merging five health care reform bills into one to make that choice available to all, so that everybody would eventually be covered, either by private insurers or the government.
The competition is what most people are afraid of, calling it an incursion of "big and powerful" government into private enterprise, which does not fit the spirit of capitalists America. However, the present state of affairs do not also suit the poor, people with pre-existing conditions, and over 40 to 50 million others who have no insurance coverage of any kind, presently or in the past.
Senator Harry Reid's plan, if it prevails, will be somewhat universal; and it will be like a very heavy burden being lifted off the shoulders of a whole lot of people, making it possible for them to show up at their own doctors' offices, instead of hospital emergency rooms, where, in some cases, they will remain unattended for hours.
The scenario can be one in which both the patients and the doctors in the ERs are "tired", and yet, they are forced to meet each other. In those kinds of situations, reforms are needed in the United States health care system, and Public Option must be part of that system, however hard the anti-public option element in society will howl.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
NO DISPUTE, MR. VICE PRSIDENT BIDEN.
"An innovative offense is the best defense". (TECHNICALLY SPEAKING). That is one of the headlines displayed by a news media outlet this morning; and it coincides with what Vice President Biden's plan for the fight in Afghanistan; to use drones and special forces to eliminate individual leaders of the militants, and that will discourage their followers and eventually disengage them from fighting.
That is what the vice president's war plan amounts to. It is in apposition to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's version of a full confrontational strategy, in the form of rooting out the Taliban terrorists, and holding an area with enough troops after that, to make civilian life possible; and the two are among the options that President Obama is looking at, to make a final decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan .
Well, the vice president's report is based on his trip to the war zone, and so, it will be far more picturesque than that of the general, who happens to be conducting the war itself; His observations are bound to be factual; and thoughtfully considering, the president will be aware of that. Yet, the experience has been that a president tends to listen to his vice president more likely than an outsider, as he thinks that the advise he gets from the person next to take his place is more feasible and he will somehow accept it without question, as a practical thing to do.
However, in this particular instance, it will be advisable for President Obama to take the general's idea more seriously than the pretty picture his vice president is presenting.
Getting rid of militant leaders does not stop a war; they are replaced instantly or almost immediately after their death, and their replacements continue from where their predecessors have left off. So, that piece of advise must be for another time, however plausible.
On another front, Vice President Biden's reaction to former Vice President Cheney's remarks on the Afghan war is one to be considered as very cogent to the argument that the Bush administration ignored the war in Afghanistan for eight years, and that the present administration has been handed a "mess", as some White House officials have been saying in recent past in the media.
He admits that a well prepared "review" has been handed to the Obama transition team; however, the mentioning of it by the former vice president "is irrelevant". That may be so, nevertheless, that puts the present government in a position of taking full responsibility for whatever happens in Afghanistan from now on; as the White House will have no more excuses to make in pushing back any mistakes, current or otherwise, on the previous government.
There is no reason here to berate Vice President Biden for his own remarks on what his predecessor has to say, as he (Biden) has been frank to vindicate the Bush administration of the controversy about additional troops that has been embedded in the review given to him and President Obama. He has allowed the truth to come out, and many Americans will commend him for that.
He has also proved that he is doing his work perfectly well, for bringing three European leaders to the understanding that the United States is committed to their defense. Those countries being Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania; and they have agreed to accept Obama's modified missile defense version, which replaces the Bush-era plan. There is no dispute at all about his performance on that score either.
Bravo, Mr. Vice President Biden.
That is what the vice president's war plan amounts to. It is in apposition to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's version of a full confrontational strategy, in the form of rooting out the Taliban terrorists, and holding an area with enough troops after that, to make civilian life possible; and the two are among the options that President Obama is looking at, to make a final decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan .
Well, the vice president's report is based on his trip to the war zone, and so, it will be far more picturesque than that of the general, who happens to be conducting the war itself; His observations are bound to be factual; and thoughtfully considering, the president will be aware of that. Yet, the experience has been that a president tends to listen to his vice president more likely than an outsider, as he thinks that the advise he gets from the person next to take his place is more feasible and he will somehow accept it without question, as a practical thing to do.
However, in this particular instance, it will be advisable for President Obama to take the general's idea more seriously than the pretty picture his vice president is presenting.
Getting rid of militant leaders does not stop a war; they are replaced instantly or almost immediately after their death, and their replacements continue from where their predecessors have left off. So, that piece of advise must be for another time, however plausible.
On another front, Vice President Biden's reaction to former Vice President Cheney's remarks on the Afghan war is one to be considered as very cogent to the argument that the Bush administration ignored the war in Afghanistan for eight years, and that the present administration has been handed a "mess", as some White House officials have been saying in recent past in the media.
He admits that a well prepared "review" has been handed to the Obama transition team; however, the mentioning of it by the former vice president "is irrelevant". That may be so, nevertheless, that puts the present government in a position of taking full responsibility for whatever happens in Afghanistan from now on; as the White House will have no more excuses to make in pushing back any mistakes, current or otherwise, on the previous government.
There is no reason here to berate Vice President Biden for his own remarks on what his predecessor has to say, as he (Biden) has been frank to vindicate the Bush administration of the controversy about additional troops that has been embedded in the review given to him and President Obama. He has allowed the truth to come out, and many Americans will commend him for that.
He has also proved that he is doing his work perfectly well, for bringing three European leaders to the understanding that the United States is committed to their defense. Those countries being Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania; and they have agreed to accept Obama's modified missile defense version, which replaces the Bush-era plan. There is no dispute at all about his performance on that score either.
Bravo, Mr. Vice President Biden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)