Post by smartarse on Aug 18, 2009 9:37:28 GMT 10
Maybe I watch too much cable news, but America seems to be particularly crazy at the moment.
One issue in particular seems to be especially frenzied, and thats health care.
Obama made a commitment during the election campaign to introducing universal coverage of health insurance. My memory of it is that he wasnt' necessarily in favour of universal publicly funded health care, but Clinton tried for that in the early 90s and got destroyed by the industry lobby. But he was interested in the creation of a public option for average americans (not just the elderly as exists at the moment through medicaid) .
Just the mention of a public option caused near total political meltdown, and Obama seems to be backing away from it very quickly.
But in any case, its a fascinating issue. The topic at Australs about capping liability for medical negligence claims is one small part of a large number of issues that are incorporated in this debate.
At a macro level, this article will give you a good sense of the three key models available to you when proposing a universal health care system: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html - it will also give you a sense of how vicious the public debate is at the moment.
But if you really want to know how nasty the debate is, check this out: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/health/policy/16ads.html
or for a slightly more lighthearted view, have a look at how The Daily Show has covered the allegations made by the extreme Right about the creation of 'death committees' that decide who lives and who dies in socialist hellholes like France, and Australia - www.muckmakers.com/video-the-obama-death-camps/
Anyway, notwithstanding the insane arguments, this is actually a really interesting debate, and will be one of the most difficult and important domestic policy debates of the Obama administration.
One issue in particular seems to be especially frenzied, and thats health care.
Obama made a commitment during the election campaign to introducing universal coverage of health insurance. My memory of it is that he wasnt' necessarily in favour of universal publicly funded health care, but Clinton tried for that in the early 90s and got destroyed by the industry lobby. But he was interested in the creation of a public option for average americans (not just the elderly as exists at the moment through medicaid) .
Just the mention of a public option caused near total political meltdown, and Obama seems to be backing away from it very quickly.
But in any case, its a fascinating issue. The topic at Australs about capping liability for medical negligence claims is one small part of a large number of issues that are incorporated in this debate.
At a macro level, this article will give you a good sense of the three key models available to you when proposing a universal health care system: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html - it will also give you a sense of how vicious the public debate is at the moment.
But if you really want to know how nasty the debate is, check this out: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/health/policy/16ads.html
or for a slightly more lighthearted view, have a look at how The Daily Show has covered the allegations made by the extreme Right about the creation of 'death committees' that decide who lives and who dies in socialist hellholes like France, and Australia - www.muckmakers.com/video-the-obama-death-camps/
Anyway, notwithstanding the insane arguments, this is actually a really interesting debate, and will be one of the most difficult and important domestic policy debates of the Obama administration.