Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Obama challenges GOP critics on health care

July 21, 2009

Advertisement

— President Barack Obama pushed back hard against Republican critics of his health care overhaul plan Monday, dismissing the “politics of the moment” marked by GOP comparisons of his efforts to socialism.

Struggling to revamp the nation’s $2.4 trillion health care system, the president gave ground on his tight timetable for passage of sweeping legislation.

Obama’s strong words came just hours after Republicans ratcheted up their criticism of the president and congressional Democrats. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, likened Obama’s plans to socialism and argued that the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and key congressional committee chairmen are part of a “cabal” that wants to implement government-run health care.

The White House also faced troubling news in the latest polling, with approval of Obama’s handling of health care slipping.

“We can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care,” Obama said after meeting with doctors, nurses and other health care workers at Children’s National Medical Center. “Not this time. Not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.”

Without mentioning his critic by name, the president recounted South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint’s comment that stopping Obama’s bid for health care overhaul could be the president’s “Waterloo,” a reference to the site of Napoleon’s bitter defeat in 1815.

“This isn’t about me,” Obama responded. “This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy.”

Striking a more populist tone than in past remarks, the president complained that “health insurance companies and their executives have reaped windfall profits from a broken system.”

“Let’s fight our way through the politics of the moment,” Obama said. “Let’s pass reform by the end of this year.”

That reflects a shift in a timetable he has stressed repeatedly. Obama had said previously that he wanted the House and Senate to vote on legislation before lawmakers leave town for their August recess, with a comprehensive bill for him to sign in October.

“I want this done now. Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town,” Obama told PBS’s “The NewsHour.” “If somebody comes to me and says ‘It’s basically done, it’s going to spill over by a few days or a week,’ you know, that’s different.”

He said too much of the focus has been on what has not been accomplished instead of on a coalition of health companies, professionals and constituents. Later in the day, aides organized a conference call for Obama to speak with liberal bloggers and rally them behind the White House’s broad outline for overhaul.

“One of the things that I know the blogs are best at is debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets and a lot of the conventional wisdom,” he said, according to audio of the call posted on Web sites. “And that is why you are going to play such an important role in our success in the weeks to come.”

Steele accused Obama of conducting a risky experiment that will hurt the economy and force millions to drop their current coverage.

“Obama-Pelosi want to start building a colossal, closed health care system where Washington decides. Republicans want and support an open health care system where patients and doctors make the decisions,” Steele said in a speech at the National Press Club.

Asked whether Obama’s health care plan represented socialism, Steele responded: “Yes. Next question.”

Obama has said he does not favor a government-run health care system. Legislation taking shape in the House envisions private insurance companies selling coverage in competition with the government.

The president is struggling to advance his trademark health care proposal after a period of evident progress. Two of three House committees have approved their portions of the bill, while one of two Senate panels have acted. A Washington Post-ABC News survey released Monday shows approval of Obama’s handling of health care overhaul slipping below 50 percent for the first time.

The president, who spent most of last week making his plea for health care overhaul, was pressing his case hard again this week, first at the children’s hospital, and later this week in a prime-time news conference Wednesday and a town hall in Ohio on Thursday.

Conservative Democrats have raised objections to some elements of the legislation, and Pelosi is floating an idea that could make proposed tax increases more palatable to them. She would like to limit income tax increases to couples making more than $1 million a year and individuals making more than $500,000, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Monday. The bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee last week would increase taxes on couples making as little as $350,000 a year and individuals annually making as little as $280,000.

Comments

Pilgrim2 4 years, 8 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says… …they are smart enough to know a huge piece of legislative BS when they see it, and that is why they don't want to have anything to do with it.


If Congress doesn't adhere to a policy because they think it is BS then the following must also be BS:

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Veteran's employment and reemployment rights at Capter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code


Amen. If Congress won't do it to themselves, you shouldn't have anything to do with it, either.

0

KS 4 years, 8 months ago

I see in the news on the web this morning that BHO now wants to play doctor on TV. Says a doc will take out tonsils on a child for money versus treating it as an allergy. How the he!! does he know what is right? Who found this guy?

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years, 8 months ago

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says… ...they are smart enough to know a huge piece of legislative BS when they see it, and that is why they don't want to have anything to do with it.


If Congress doesn't adhere to a policy because they think it is BS then the following must also be BS:

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Veteran's employment and reemployment rights at Capter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code

All of which (plus more) Congress was never forced to adhere to until 1995.

0

puddleglum 4 years, 8 months ago

hey everybody, forget all this, I am the one who is right.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 8 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

But let me ask you and yours this: If this is such a slam-dunk good idea, why is Congress exempting itself and the executive branch from its provisions? Frankly, if the Congress isn't willing to make itself subject to any law it passes, I don't want to have anything to do with it. How about you?


Of course not- because we've learned that politicians aren't like you and me. They believe they are of a higher intelligence, don't have to live by the same rules, and have no personal shame. They already pass laws that they are not subject to.

And that makes it all right?

If for no other reason, you should be vigorously opposing this health care monstrosity simply because the Congress won't make itself, the executive branch, and all federal employees subject to its provisions. My guess is, no matter how smart they think they are, or how smart you and I think they are, they are smart enough to know a huge piece of legislative BS when they see it, and that is why they don't want to have anything to do with it.

Don't just say "no," say HELL No!

0

Satirical 4 years, 9 months ago

Don't worry citizens, Obama is working hard and making back-room deals with all the drug companies to keep you safe...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j904hBjTq0B-AklYcG2sbK0d76dQD99J4SS80

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

But let me ask you and yours this: If this is such a slam-dunk good idea, why is Congress exempting itself and the executive branch from its provisions? Frankly, if the Congress isn't willing to make itself subject to any law it passes, I don't want to have anything to do with it. How about you?


Perhaps you've forgotten that House members once bounced more than 8300 checks at their own personal bank, the House Bank- forcing it to close due to their own incompetence.

Have you already forgotten how our leaders looked us in the eye and pledged to fix their House Bank problem only to promptly bounce and additional 4325 checks?

Have you forgotten how no bounced check or overdraft fees were ever charged, becuase the House Bank didn't impose those pesky and expensive fees that you and I would have to pay given the exact same circumstances?

Do you seriously doubt that if it had been a private bank and not members of Congress who'd written 12,000 bad checks, there'd would have been never-ending televised hearings, perp walks, and prison sentences? Would it surprise you to learn not one of the "public servants" who dishonored their office was ever sent to jail?

Of course not- because we've learned that politicians aren't like you and me. They believe they are of a higher intelligence, don't have to live by the same rules, and have no personal shame. They already pass laws that they are not subject to.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 9 months ago

madameX (Anonymous) says…

If you start at the beginning of the section which the Pg 16 paragraph is part of (bottom of pg 14) you can get a better idea of the context. From what I can tell, this section is laying out certain standards that, if passed, this bill will require all insurance plans to meet. Sec. 102(a)(1)(A) is part of a section on grandfathering in old plans, meaning that if your plan doesn't meet the new standards you can keep it, but if new people are enrolled after the bill takes effect the plans they are enrolled in have to meet the new standards. I don't think it means they can't enroll new customers, I think it means they can't enroll new customers on old plans.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on interpretation.

But let me ask you and yours this: If this is such a slam-dunk good idea, why is Congress exempting itself and the executive branch from its provisions? Frankly, if the Congress isn't willing to make itself subject to any law it passes, I don't want to have anything to do with it. How about you?

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

I used to think that myself. Still believe he's some kind of bot, not a real person, but it appears to post at random rather than according to any particular trigger words (merrill will post his BS about healthcare to a thread about a stolen bicycle).

Remember when he spammed the thread following his own LTE? That was amusing.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

maybe it's iMerrill, like a software program? I do think it is, installed on the LJW server to post randomly with certain trigger words, sometimes changed to match the current Obama folly, like the words "nationalized healthcare" spur a series of posts. Or the letters "CIA" could also trigger a blast of posts with hyperlinks etc. Or like a few years ago, "Bush", "Iraq" or "Cheney" would trigger the iMerrill program to post at random. I hope you're at least getting a chuckle (i)merrill. ;-)

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

"Merrill, do you want to be a loser regarding your healthcare?"

That was a rhetorical question, I presume? Heck, I just wonder why he keeps bothering to post the same cut-and-paste cr*pola. Everyone just skips over them, and everything he's posted has been proven to be untrue countless times.

(btw, merrill isn't capitalized - nor does it deserve to be.)

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

I was wondering if you could cite a quote from the Mayo Clinic, merrill, Mayo Clinic who The Anointed One invokes when trying to garner support for his ObamaCare trillions?

That's OK, I have it right here:

"The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall "the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," clinic officials said, because the proposals aren't patient-focused or results-oriented. "The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/21/mayo-clinic-calls-house-plan-bad-medicine/?feat=home_cube_position1

Merrill, do you want to be a loser regarding your healthcare?

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 9 months ago

The U.S. health insurance system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health insurance bill is paid through taxes which comes to $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion is a sweet gravy train for the industry. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

Not only does doing nothing increase the cost of health insurance so do the house and senate bills receiving all the attention.

The business community should be demanding HR 676/Senate 903. Then they should be demanding no employer should be forced to pay UNLESS an employer wishes to reimburse an employee as part of the pay package.

This discussion is about about health insurance not health care. The insurance industry is doing a great job at confusing the public. The US Chamber of Commerce is part of the confusion campaign.

Dan Eggen and Kimberly Kindy Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 6, 2009 The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html?

Too many legislators are on the confusion band wagon as shareholders and special interest campaign money receivers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

Senate Report Finds Insurers Wrongfully Charged Consumers Billions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Paying More Getting Less http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

0

tunahelper 4 years, 9 months ago

“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

  • Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Presidential Campaign
0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

"Sooner or probably, much later probably, common sense and reality will finally sink in."

Sooner than you think, BeO. Support for your Messiah is eroding pretty quickly, actually.


beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"They will just get more and more shrill with their whining because nobody is paying any real attention to them anymore."

How many registered Republicans are there, bea dear? How many people in this country oppose the president's healthcare plan? Seems like someone's listening (although obviously not many of those someones live in Larryville). Especially when you consider that, as you point out, they have no real power to stop Obama in the legislature - seems even some Democrats are coming to their senses and listening to the Republicans, since he doesn't seem to be getting his way even with a bullet-proof majority.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

"If you can't practice medicine without permission from your master then you aren't free."

The slight flaw in your argument is that anyone (at least anyone capable) is free to earn a license to practice.

I am the holder of a professional license. The requirement to be licensed in order to practice does limit the practitioners, obviously. It limits them to those who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the state licensing board, that they possess the requisite education, training, and experience to provide services with an acceptable level of competency. It does not limit competition. Anyone, including you, is free to compete with me. Go to school, get your degree, complete your internship, pass the exam, and get your license.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

Hmm. So if I say that pretzels are too salty that means I must think all the food in the world is too salty. I see. If I say that on economic issues there is either intervention or non-intervention then I must think the whole world is one dichotomy after another.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

There is no denying the worm has most definitely turned for Obama. I'm almost already starting to feel sorry for him. I don't think I'll like witnessing the absolute embarassment and abandonment he is in for. (But I'll deal with it somehow...hehe).

Like Ann Coulter pointed out, when Repubs get control, it's for 10-12-14 years and then they blow it big, but Dems (as always) get in power and like the utter incompetent, opportunistic and brazen idiots they are, manage to blow it in 2-4 years, like clockwork. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are right on schedule.

0

Godot 4 years, 9 months ago

Obama is already one of the worst of all time. Look at the bright side, he has dug himself in so deep, all he (and we) can do is look up.

0

beobachter 4 years, 9 months ago

Tom, you are one of those who told us Bush was a good, if not great president. What does that say about your prognosticating skills? Too bad nether of us will be around to see how history rates them . However I feel sure Obama will not be one of the worst of all time as Bush surely will.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

No, Bush in his best day could not spend like Obama. Obama is sinking in the polls faster than a lead sinker. The party is over Obama worshipers. We tried to tell you.

0

ChrisNyberg 4 years, 9 months ago

America got another Bush and his name is Obama. Spends like Bush and wants everything to be Government run.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't stalk Palin and obsess over her like you do beoB. What now? Fill me in.

I did see one of your beloved dems, Carnahan get laughed out of the room talking about Obama creating a $6B surplus from his healthcare plan. What a buffoon Carnahan is, like his mommy and daddy.

How hilarious! Fortunately, until Obama, Joe "Nother one bartender" Biden, Pelosi and Reid will provide many, many more laughs until they're all gone in 2-4 years from now.

0

beobachter 4 years, 9 months ago

So who or what is a Ron Paul? All I see and can find is a total nutcase. What America needs is not another Bush.

0

ChrisNyberg 4 years, 9 months ago

America has flushed the toilet with neocons and were puking in the toilet with government programs. There is only one true leader in America and that is Ron Paul. If people want the truth check out campaignforliberty.com

0

beobachter 4 years, 9 months ago

By the way, gigolo, what the latest on your beloved Sarah? See she made the news again. And again, not in a positive light.

0

KS 4 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Nancy - I see it coming. It's going to be fun watching him implode. I don't understand how he can get up in front of the American people and keep a straight face when telling all those lies. Hummmm! Teleprompter, maybe?

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

Obama will crack soon and we'll start seeing more of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright type personality. I'm gonna pop up some Orville Redenbacher's, pop a cold brew and sit back and enjoy the show.

0

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

beo, you are wrong. Common sense and reality won't sink in for the neocons. They will just get more and more shrill with their whining because nobody is paying any real attention to them anymore. America has flushed that toilet.

0

Godot 4 years, 9 months ago

My correction: Obama is The Most Audacious Liar in Chief in the History of the Free World.

That better?

0

beobachter 4 years, 9 months ago

godot, Bush laid claim to liar in chief title. As yet, no one has come close to replacing him. But, hey, the right wing nutcases still can't believe they got their butts kicked the last 2 elections because of him. Sooner or probably, much later probably, common sense and reality will finally sink in.

0

Godot 4 years, 9 months ago

I reference the current Liar in Chief residing in the White House. He is a master of deceit. Problem is, we are on to his lying ways. We see that "who, me?" innocent look, and we know he is lying; we see his feigned "gravitas" look and we know he is lying; we see is "Hey, bro, whassup" look and we know we are being played. Then we see his jaws clenched, edges of mouth turned down, brows furrowed, and reddened eyes drawn to slits, and we observe the real Obama.

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

Straw man L_O?

What easily refutable argument did I attribute to you? My original point was that your request to argue about the merits of a command vs. free economy was a waste of time because it was too theoretical to address real world problems. I then expounded on my point by noting that the whole command vs. free economy was a falsely dichotomous argument in the context of said real world problems (due to the fact that it is overly-theoretical) because the world doesn't operate in the either/or manner that a dichotomous argument assumes.

You then questioned my "unilateral" declaration of "no dichotomy". Is that not asking for proof of my point (which was that the world is not dichotomous)?

Perhaps you could explain what you meant by this statement if it was not intended to impeach my previous assertion that the world is not dichotomous (even though our political discourse is):

"Non-existent dichotomy? You unilaterally declare there to be no dichotomy without any reasoning other than pointing to other examples where you again declare there to be no dichotomy. That's pretty weak"

"Yes, that is what I'm trying to imply. If you can't practice medicine without permission from your master then you aren't free. If the master can arbitrarily seize the product of your labor then you are a slave, are you not?"


As far as I'm concerned, you can take your attitude that anyone who doesn't align with your--quite frankly--radical view and shove it.

People aren't free because they need a license to practice medicine?????? You just compared requiring a license to practice a vital profession (one where a person's life is literally in your hands) with being a slave. I guess it all depends on what you consider "arbitrary". I'm not sure if most people would consider a medical licensure process to be "arbitrary".

0

Machiavelli_mania 4 years, 9 months ago

I want this plan riddled with deep, deep details. Nothing else will do.

0

Machiavelli_mania 4 years, 9 months ago

I think that pushing this health plan rapidly thru smacks of Bush/Cheney-like antics. Slow down the Congressional acts. Will call Congresspersons regarding this bush-like behavior in Obama.

0

beobachter 4 years, 9 months ago

godot, "Liar in Chief", why are you referencing Bush?

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

Obama is in a slow implosion mode. Expect calls for his removal by this time next year, when the pain becomes excruciating. Electing a celebrity was destined to doom. Get over the African-American thing; this is the race factor coming back to blow up in the left's face.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…

"And honestly, asking for proof that the world is not really composed of dichotomies is a bit absurd."

It certainly is absurd. You really told that straw man what for.

"I'm stunned that you would deny that the world around you isn't composed of degrees of variance."

I'm stunned too since I don't recall making such a general statement about the world.

"m not sure why you are bringing this up unless you are somehow trying to imply that my viewpoint is contradictory to the notion of America as a free nation or that the Constitution is the law of the land."

Yes, that is what I'm trying to imply. If you can't practice medicine without permission from your master then you aren't free. If the master can arbitrarily seize the product of your labor then you are a slave, are you not?

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

[continued]

"Also, I might add that my fundamental problem (the current rhetoric being spewed by most Republicans) is likely a contributing factor to public opinion, valid or not."

How gullible you believe the public to be. If they were that easily swayed by what they see on TV, how come they aren't massively in favor of the bill after listening to the rhetoric of a still-popular (however temporarily) and charismatic president?

As for whether they are faster at making up their minds quicker than the legislators are, judging by past performance, they've probably read more of the plan than the legislators have (or will). Too many legislators don't know or don't care what's in a bill their party leadership tells them to vote for (or against). And isolated in the ivory towers of D.C., most of them will never be affected by their decisions and they really don't care. There are provisions of this bill that you or I know immediately how they will affect our lives, and it might only be one or two provisions that make the difference to us. It takes a little longer for a legislator, responsible for affecting the lives of millions of constituents, can analyze the whole package and evaluate the effects on all of them.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

logicsound09;

This might be a first - your post being longer than mine! :)

"My point was when the requests for time are accompanied by inflammatory and sensationalist language, the request for more time seems less genuine."

No different than the inflammatory statements coming from the other side. Remember all the rhetoric about S-CHIP, how if the president vetoed it he wanted poor sick children to die? Neither side ever thinks their criticism is inflammatory.

"I have a hard time believing that attempting to reduce frivolous malpractice suits will result in a significant overall reduction in healthcare cost."

You know what they say in Washington - a few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. No, it wouldn't solve the problem. But it would help. Maybe that's the problem: everyone wants the magic bullet, ONE thing that's going to fix the whole problem. Why can't it be a combination of a lot of smaller fixes?

"my point is that if you are going to cut cost by taking away a revenue stream to the government, you have to find another way to fulfill the service that was being filled by that revenue stream."

Or - and I know this might be a radical idea - cut costs somewhere.

"Regarding the specific claims you raised..."

That 31% figure has been thrown around so much it has mutated into a mantra and has been blamed entirely on the costs of insurance. The study you refer to, which appeared in the NEJM, was written by the founders of PNHP, who self-describe themselves as being dedicated to only one option, single-payer taxpayer-funded healthcare. The study was fraught with assumptions and methodological problems, and it did not conclude any such thing (although elsewhere on the PNHP's site they attempt to blame all those costs on insurance) - most of those administrative costs would not be reduced one iota no matter who pays.

And the number of uninsured, as has been noted in the press and cited by numerous posters here, includes a lot of people who are uninsured by choice or should not be eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits (e.g. illegal aliens). I believe the actual number who really can't get insurence is closer to 17M?

"They are using falsehoods to rail against a plan that isn't even remotely socialist."

Based on the strict definition that Socialism is when the state owns the means of production (like, say, General Motors). But if the government is paying for healthcare, whether a single-payer or being the largest insurer, they control the means of production, whether they own it or not. Every small business owner understands that - it's a myth to call yourself 'self-employed,' you work for the people that purchase your product or services.

[continued]

0

Godot 4 years, 9 months ago

Listen to our Liar in Chief regarding the ability to "keep" but not obtain, private health insurance:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/21/obama_not_familiar_with_key_provision_in_health_care_bill.html

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

"Non-existent dichotomy? You unilaterally declare there to be no dichotomy without any reasoning other than pointing to other examples where you again declare there to be no dichotomy. That's pretty weak."


says the guy who just declared medical licensure is about non-competition without any support for his argument.

And honestly, asking for proof that the world is not really composed of dichotomies is a bit absurd. Saying that the world is not dichotomous is synonymous with saying the world isn't black and white. There are degrees of difference everywhere, the first being on the issue that we started with--command vs. free economy. We have neither a purely free economy, nor do we have a command economy. There are elements of both--the government is involved in the ownership of some of the means of production. On the other hand, most private enterprise is relatively free to conduct business as it sees fit.

I'm stunned that you would deny that the world around you isn't composed of degrees of variance.

I agree that on any individual question, you either intervene or you don't. Hell, you can even splice individual questions into smaller components. Should we intervene in healthcare can easily become 2 (or more) questions: should we intervene in the administration of healthcare. Should we intervene in the payment for healthcare. Etc. But debating the merits of a command vs. free economy isn't about answering any individual question, it's about answering an overarching approach to governance. There are some areas where intervention is a good idea. There are other where it is not. Obviously, healthcare is one area where I believe intervention is a good thing.

============================

"Indoctrination. I was indotrinated with several ideas. Stealing is wrong. It is wrong to initiate force against another human being. The purpose of government is to protect, not destroy, individuals' rights. The silliest things I was indoctrinated with is the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that America is a free country."


I'm not sure why you are bringing this up unless you are somehow trying to imply that my viewpoint is contradictory to the notion of America as a free nation or that the Constitution is the law of the land.

Would you care to wrap yourself in the flag as well?

0

jumpin_catfish 4 years, 9 months ago

If it passes as is, it will be a disaster. If it is throughly debated and studied by congress and passed, it will be a disaster. Our elected officials are only pushing through what the lobbyist wrote for them. Politicians don't write law, special interest write our laws.

0

madameX 4 years, 9 months ago

""""LOL, like they'd say that as their goal—”making a cartel for driving up prices!” What exactly is your justification for accepting what the government tells you?""""


Well what would be the motive for the government to drive up prices? As we can see, the just get a bunch of pissed of constituients who insist that they do something to lower prices. I don't necessarily believe what they say, but why would they join your "price fixing cartel" if there's nothing in it for them?

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

....continued:

"Like the lies perpetuated over and over and over again by the Democrats (see merrill as a reference)? Like the one-third of our healthcare dollars go to insurance company profits and other such ridiculous claims? Or 50 million people can't get health insurance? Those kinds of lies?"


Well, I don't know if merrill speaks for anybody but his single-minded self, and I certainly have no loyalty to the Democrats. In an earlier post on this thread, I talked about needing reasonable discourse from Republicans to prevent Democrat corruption, as Wallythewalrus cited in his 8:29 am post.

Regarding the specific claims you raised, I hadn't heard that 33% of healthcare dollars go to insurance company profits. I know one of the issues is that in a study done in 2003, 31% of health spending goes to administrative costs (from PNHP website). Regarding 50 million uninsured...not sure about that one either. As of 2007, 44 million were without health insurance in 2006 according to a survey done by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. That number was adjusted slightly by the U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/health_care_insurance/009789.html

==================================

"The Republicans are not in power any more, logicsound. If the Democrats were united in favor of this cr*pola, it would already have passed. The fact is there's no way the Republicans can stop it without resistance from within the Democratic party."


I'm well aware. Thanks. I'm not sure if you're reading my posts, as I'm not sitting here going to bat for the current Obama plan. My main issue is with the language and rhetoric being used by the Republicans. They are using falsehoods to rail against a plan that isn't even remotely socialist. I can't even imagine what they'd say if Obama was pushing a single-payer plan. It's just a prime case of anti-intellectualism--find the word(s) that produce the most sensational response and use those, accurate or not.

I must add that I find it mildly amusing that when it comes to evaluating the plan, we need more time because it's so complex and extensive (which I agree with), but when it comes to supporting the idea that the plan isn't any good, you are happy as a clam to toss out the "50% of the American people" aren't on board statistic. Am I to believe that the plan is too complex for the legislators in Washington to understand so soon, but the American people have a solid grasp? Really?

Also, I might add that my fundamental problem (the current rhetoric being spewed by most Republicans) is likely a contributing factor to public opinion, valid or not.

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

"Or maybe the more time people have to study the bill, the worse it looks. If it's such a great idea today, it will still be a great idea tomorrow. If more time makes it less palatable, there's a reason for that."


I think you missed the idea of the comment to which this was a response. They can take as much time as is reasonably necessary. My point was when the requests for time are accompanied by inflammatory and sensationalist language, the request for more time seems less genuine.

=================================

"BS, and you know it...The Republicans have brought up proposals to cut the cost of healthcare such as tort reform and other reforms that would make healthcare more affordable regardless of the pay source, not to mention refundable tax credits and other ways to pay for it."


Tort reform is important and definitely part of the equation, but I have a hard time believing that attempting to reduce frivolous malpractice suits will result in a significant overall reduction in healthcare cost. The problem, as with any lawsuit, is determining which ones have merit and which ones are money-collecting schemes. Maybe I don't completely understand malpractice litigation, but isn't the whole point of a suit to determine of a patient's claim of malpractice is valid or not? How are we going to cut down on frivolous suits without also eliminating the valid ones. I don't ask to be difficult, just that the idea of "tort reform" sounds wonderful, but seems easier to talk about than to actually do effectively.

Regarding tax credits...I'm sorry, I don't consider that to be terribly original solution. More often than not, it's the Republican auto-reply to any issue. The problem with tax-credits is that they "cut cost" by taking away revenue from somewhere else. The cost hasn't actually been cut, but merely subsidized by giving less to the government. I understand that there are many people who feel that the government collects too much in taxes already, which is fine. BUt my point is that if you are going to cut cost by taking away a revenue stream to the government, you have to find another way to fulfill the service that was being filled by that revenue stream.

To be continued....

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

LOL, like they'd say that as their goal--"making a cartel for driving up prices!" What exactly is your justification for accepting what the government tells you?

0

madameX 4 years, 9 months ago

or I'll b-e-l-i-e-v-e you...

0

madameX 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't think AMA issues licenses, I think state medical boards do. So its goal likely is to protect it members but that isn't really relevant. I understand the logic you're following, but it's still just your opinion, not proof. If you can cite me something official that states that the goal of medical regualtion is to reduce competition, not protect patients I'll belive you but until then it's your opinion versus mine, and I haven yet to be persuaded to change mine.

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says… Forcing people into a government-run health plan is exactly what this bill will do.


madameX (Anonymous) says…

If you start at the beginning of the section which the Pg 16 paragraph is part of (bottom of pg 14) you can get a better idea of the context. From what I can tell, this section is laying out certain standards that, if passed, this bill will require all insurance plans to meet. Sec. 102(a)(1)(A) is part of a section on grandfathering in old plans, meaning that if your plan doesn't meet the new standards you can keep it, but if new people are enrolled after the bill takes effect the plans they are enrolled in have to meet the new standards. I don't think it means they can't enroll new customers, I think it means they can't enroll new customers on old plans.


This.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

MadameX, the real goal of licensing is to create a professional cartel. Fewer providers means higher wages for those with licenses. It is all about boosting income by restricting competition. Use your brain, is the goal of the AMA to protect you or its members?

0

madameX 4 years, 9 months ago

"""LS09, re: licensing. It has nothing to do with ensuring that doctors are qualified, it is a non-competition scheme."""

Can you prove this? I'm pretty sketical.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

LS09, re: licensing. It has nothing to do with ensuring that doctors are qualified, it is a non-competition scheme.

Non-existent dichotomy? You unilaterally declare there to be no dichotomy without any reasoning other than pointing to other examples where you again declare there to be no dichotomy. That's pretty weak. At least argue from authority or something. Regardless, it comes down to intervention or non-intervention. How much and what kind may create different "flavors," but for any one issue the question that must first be asked is whether to invtervene or not. There's no middle ground on that question. You either intervene or you don't.

Indoctrination. I was indotrinated with several ideas. Stealing is wrong. It is wrong to initiate force against another human being. The purpose of government is to protect, not destroy, individuals' rights. The silliest things I was indoctrinated with is the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that America is a free country.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…

"However, it is a balancing act, as while spending time is prudent to make sure the solution is ideal, spending time is also a political tactic for opposing/obstructing change altogether. And when the RNC chairperson comes out using words like “socialism” and “cabal”, it doesn't sound like they want time to get the plan right. It sounds like they want to use time as a weapon against the success of any real reform."

Or maybe the more time people have to study the bill, the worse it looks. If it's such a great idea today, it will still be a great idea tomorrow. If more time makes it less palatable, there's a reason for that.

"It's too bad that most Republicans don't want to have a serious discussion on the issue, as it is a complex problem, and one that I, for one, would appreciate having a valid opposition to help tweak and improve proposals."

BS, and you know it. There have been numerous proposals from both sides. The Republicans have brought up proposals to cut the cost of healthcare such as tort reform and other reforms that would make healthcare more affordable regardless of the pay source, not to mention refundable tax credits and other ways to pay for it. It's not that the Repiblicans haven't made suggestions, they're just suggestions the Democrats won't consider, and (apparently) the liberals on these message boards won't even acknowledge.

"Unfortunately, most Republicans are more satisfied to bleet the same lies over and over, using this as a political weapon rather than an opportunity to serve the American people."

Like the lies perpetuated over and over and over again by the Democrats (see merrill as a reference)? Like the one-third of our healthcare dollars go to insurance company profits and other such ridiculous claims? Or 50 million people can't get health insurance? Those kinds of lies?

The Republicans are not in power any more, logicsound. If the Democrats were united in favor of this cr*pola, it would already have passed. The fact is there's no way the Republicans can stop it without resistance from within the Democratic party. And as far as what's best for the American people, 50% of them say the Obama plan isn't it (a significantly larger percentage of the populace than those registered as Republicans, BTW).

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

Marry in haste, repent in leisure (the motto of the folks duped into voting for the current occupant of the White House).

0

KS 4 years, 9 months ago

Now we know why he MUST use a teleprompter! He can't keep a straight face while lying to the American people. I said a long time ago that this guy was going to make Jimmy Carter look good and the current polls reflect just that. He ranks #10 of the last 12 Presidents in approval ratings at 6 months into his term. Bush even beat him. Gosh, how did that happen?

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

"Oops. Better take a look at the actual language in the bill, as shown in snap's post right under where you displayed your ignorance of what's in the bill."


The actual language, like in the link MadameX provided? Or the "actual language", like the snippet you and snap prefer to focus on?

Oops. Perhaps you should read the bill before proudly gloating about others supposed ignorance.

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

"Why is it we just can't have an open and honest debate about the merits of a command economy versus a free economy?"


The first problem is that it's all theory. I'm not sure how much a debate of command vs. free is relevant, considering the fact that our system is a hybrid and will in all likelihood continue to be so.

Your problem, L_O, is that you argue free-market theory as if it is synonymous with how an actual unfettered free market would behave. Unfortunately, pure theories become diluted and perverse when implemented in the real world. We saw as much with communism, and it's foolish to assume that similar things wouldn't happen with pure capitalism. To use your example of whether one can practice medicine without permission of the government, I would say that such a step is necessary to ensure that we can trust those who deal with our health and well-being. I would imagine your response is that we don't need the government licensing and stepping in because individuals can stop going to poor performing physicians and litigate against woefully incompetent ones. That seems to be your solution for any abuse of the free market, and while great to argue in theory (doctors overall will become better as the market weeds out poor ones and the legal system weeds out dangerous ones), but you cannot possibly know how such a system would actually play out.

The second problem is that it's naive to assume the solution is an either/or proposition. This free market vs. command economy is a dichotomy that isn't realistic. It's the same false dichotomy that permeates the political discussions of all our most important issues. Socialism or free market, abortion vs. choice, global warming-real vs. fake, creation vs. evolution, conservative or liberal, religious vs. secular. Politicians thrive on the 'us vs. them' approach--it's much easier to say "my way good, their way bad" than it is to have a reasonable discussion about what positives from each approach we want to strive towards and what negatives from each approach we want to avoid.

And you seem to have missed my point about using the term "socialism" when it is accurate. In fact, your response (answer: when it's too late) is a perfect example of the problem I was getting at. Rather than using the word to convey a specific idea or concept, the word is used because of the images it conjures up in the minds of voters and taxpayers. Once socialism is here, we're doomed! It's like a milder form of invoking "communism"--people (just like you) are indoctrinated to think socialism = bad, so the minute the term is tossed out there, it loses it's descriptive value.

0

Jim Phillips 4 years, 9 months ago

Apparently, there is more bad about the bill than people knew, which seems to support the big, bad Conservatives "unfounded" concerns. Even the Dems are refusing to vote for it as is. GIven the fact there are not enough Republicans to kill anything the Messiah wants passed, someone apparently did not get the marching orders not to read the bill before voting.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

puddleglum, our highway system is almost completely socialist as it is owned and operated by the government.

0

staff04 4 years, 9 months ago

Wally-

All of these comments are based on my understanding of the current draft proposal. The bill is still a draft and is subject to change.

With certain caveats, yes, your employer could drop your coverage. Of course, in the current system they can also drop your coverage.

If the business is big enough, they would have to either offer employment based coverage or pay into the public option (which, as currently proposed will offer coverage that is comparable to employer sponsored plans).

The major difference you would likely encounter is that under the current system you would have to pay out-of-pocket costs for insurance coverage or go without. Under the proposal you would have the opportunity to purchase coverage under the public option at rates close to what most employees pay for their employer sponsored plan.

0

Andrew Stahmer 4 years, 9 months ago

Foir those of you who have nothing bad to say about universal/socialized healthcare, there's nothing stopping you from heading up north to Canada. They've got their system in place and it's been running for decades. (...or how about England or Austrailia?)

Those of us who agree that our system needs some fixing, but do not want government-controlled, government-run healthcare can stay down here. Some of us are fine with us paying for our own healthcare, and you pay for your own.

Send me your address and I'll even come help you pack! (Maybe we'll even throw you a farwell party!)

0

Shane Garrett 4 years, 9 months ago

Can I ask someone whom might know the answer? What if my company decides that the current health care plan is costing the company to much money, can the company simply drop it and tell the employees to get on the government plan?

0

staff04 4 years, 9 months ago

Thanks MadameX...you have more patience with them than I do.

That sums it up very nicely.

0

puddleglum 4 years, 9 months ago

okay, so some of you are falling for this 'socialism' tag. nothing socialist about it. if you call halping to afford health care via government assistance, what do you call stoplights? Roads? police departments? Firehouses? some of you don't like the raise in taxes. I understand. The problem, once again, isn't who pays for whos insurance, the problem is the inflated costs of insurance. It needs to change-then everyone would be happy. (except insurance companies.) (and insurance company lobbyists)

0

madameX 4 years, 9 months ago

Here's a link to the actual bill:

http://weiner.house.gov/reports/HR3200.pdf

If you start at the beginning of the section which the Pg 16 paragraph is part of (bottom of pg 14) you can get a better idea of the context. From what I can tell, this section is laying out certain standards that, if passed, this bill will require all insurance plans to meet. Sec. 102(a)(1)(A) is part of a section on grandfathering in old plans, meaning that if your plan doesn't meet the new standards you can keep it, but if new people are enrolled after the bill takes effect the plans they are enrolled in have to meet the new standards. I don't think it means they can't enroll new customers, I think it means they can't enroll new customers on old plans.

0

staff04 4 years, 9 months ago

I thought the page 16 thing had been cleared up? Oh, that's right, you failed to read the rest of the bill (or take your knowledge of insurance law into account) to put page 16 into context. If you had you would know you've parroted a quickly debunked lie.

Oh ferchrissakes, it isn't worth it.

Read the rest of the freaking bill before you trot out something as stupid as "it outlaws private insurance." It doesn't, but I guess like all of your peers, a lie repeated often enough...

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 9 months ago

logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…

A single-payer system would be closer to socialism, as the government would be the sole health insurance entity, but none of the current proposals involve government takeover of the healthcare industry.


Oops. Better take a look at the actual language in the bill, as shown in snap's post right under where you displayed your ignorance of what's in the bill.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

LS09,

Plainly said, it's socialism by a thousand cuts. We are over halfway there, but obstinate folks like yourself continue to deny this is the direction we are headed, why? Why is it we just can't have an open and honest debate about the merits of a command economy versus a free economy? You say we aren't facing a "government takeover of the healthcare industry" but if that's true than answer this: can you practice medicine without permission from the government?

logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…

“LS09, when then will people have your permission to use the word socialism to describe government economic interventionism?”

–––––-

When it's accurate.

Translation: when it's too late.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

"Obama's talk about his health care plan creating more competition is bunk. It will virtually make private health insurance illegal. If you are self employed like my husband and I are you will not be able to get private health insurance. You will be required to get on the public option. Take a look at this language in HR 3200 under section 102 with the Orwellian title Protecting the Choice to Keep Curent Coverage:

Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. And then there's this:

Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1. So, the private insurance companies will have built in price controls on existing customers, yet they won't be able to bring in new customers after Y1 of the health care plan. How do the private insurance companies compete with the government run health care plan? They don't. This bill is designed to kill the private insurance industry and force people onto the government plan.

And if you get your health insurance through your employer, you're not off the hook either:

The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121. In other words, if your employer offers health insurance, he has five years to make his plan identical to the public option. So what's the point of remaining with your probably more expensive employer's private health care plan? There isn't any, so once again, the government forces you onto its government run health care system and under its thumb." http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/20/barack-obama-inadvertently-tells-the-truth-about-his-health-care-plan.php

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

"LS09, when then will people have your permission to use the word socialism to describe government economic interventionism?"


When it's accurate. The definition of socialism is out there for all to see. Creating a government plan to compete with private plans in the free market is not socialism.

A single-payer system would be closer to socialism, as the government would be the sole health insurance entity, but none of the current proposals involve government takeover of the healthcare industry. And since the word is being used in such a grossly incorrect manner, it illustrates that the word is not being used for it's meaning, but for the impression it creates. The Republicans are clearly invoking "socialism" to create fear, not because the current proposals are actually socialist in nature.

It's clearly got you worried. I really can't make it any simpler for you...

0

Esq2eB 4 years, 9 months ago

We should let the fed's handle everyones healthcare, I mean, look at what a raging success medicare and medicaid are. No fraud or waste, just two incredibly efficient systems. I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this.

In other news, this month in Afghanistan has seen the most American casualities since we arrived 8 years ago. Why isn't O'messiah talking about this?

0

BigDog 4 years, 9 months ago

Merrill,

Your source for this data?

It seems that the Congressional Budget Office hasn't calculated the costs on this bill yet. Though several of the health reform bills have been .... and some have actually increased the cost of health care in their estimates.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

"...Obama has insisted repeatedly that the bill would not force people out of their private health insurance plans, which have over 80% of Americans satisfied at the moment. Now we find out that Obama hasn’t read the section of the bill that pertains to the issue? It shows that Obama has been talking out of his hat the entire time, and has become so disengaged from the process that he’s not bothering to keep up with the legislative changes." http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/21/obama-says-talking-time-over-but-has-no-clue-whats-in-obamacare/

0

barrypenders 4 years, 9 months ago

My sheep and cattle have universal health care.

0

parrotuya 4 years, 9 months ago

Riddle me this:

What is a liberal?

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't lost his health insurance yet!

DOWn, baby, DOWn!

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 9 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

No one is “forcing” anyone to take the plan. You will still be able to continue to use your private health insurance if you want to.


BS.

Page 16 from the healthcare reform bill:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law."

What's that mean?

(a) if you don't already have private health insurance when the law becomes effective you will not be allowed to buy private health insurance; and

(b) if you're employer chooses not to continue a health insurance plan for his employees after the law becomes effective you will not be allowed to buy private health insurance; and

(c) if you leave a company to go to work for yourself after the law is effective you will not be allowed to buy private health insurance.

(d) the law specifically exempts members of Congress and the Executive branch from being subject to it's provisions.

Forcing people into a government-run health plan is exactly what this bill will do. All except those who are writing it, because they know what BS it is.

Let's see if all those in Washington who are pushing for this have the courage of their convictions and are willing to put all of the executive branch and the legislative branch under the provisions of their proposal. No opt outs allowed. No exclusions permitted. Ask your local Senators and Representatives if they'll go for that. If they don't give you an immediate, unflinching, unqualified “yes,” you know we're about to be screwed. And you, Jesse, are just the type of useful idiot they're counting on to swallow the BS whole.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 9 months ago

LS09, when then will people have your permission to use the word socialism to describe government economic interventionism? What's the benchmark because it seems if there is any aspect of health care that still operates under a free market the ills of the entire industry get blamed on capitalism.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

""The time for talk is through." -- President Obama, talking to liberal bloggers on a conference call Monday night. The Democratic bills in the House and Senate are a thousand pages long. They're still changing as committees try to mark them up, or as they mark up other versions of health insurance legislation. There's huge uncertainty about how lots of provisions in the bills and under consideration would work--OMB Director Orzsag and HHS Secretary Sibelius couldn't answer straightforward questions on Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press. Nothing goes into effect in any case until 2013--except the tax provisions, which would begin in 2011. Yet President Obama wants everyone to stop debating and deliberating, and act now--because he and he alone has decided "now is the time to go ahead and act." Congress should assert itself, stand up for the deliberative and democratic process, and defy this presumptuous presidential dictate. The time to debate is now. There's plenty of time to act later." http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/kristol_shut_up_obama_explaine.asp

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 9 months ago

Expect lies, distorted info & big buck questionable commercials from the repub party aka character assassinations to destroy any movement toward repairing the damage from wreckanomomics aka 30 years of Reaganomics.

The republican party is living in fear that the USA may bounce back after 8 years of their war mongering bank fraud economics. The fear is if the USA quality of life improves dramatically they are out of politics for a very long time.

What do they fear? National Health Insurance HR 676 that contains costs and saves $350,000,000,000 annually plus would cover every person for all necessary medical care including: prescription drugs hospital, surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental, mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment palliative care long term cancer care.

A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs.

HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

What else is the opposing party afraid of:

  • New Industry thus new jobs thus new wealth for the USA

  • Green Collar Industries which produce jobs that cannot be outsourced

  • A dramatically improved quality of life for all americans

  • Being exposed as the party manipulating the lower middle class,middle class and upper middle class to fund increasing wealth to the upper 1%.

  • Losing of tax incentives/tax breaks for the wealthy that actually create tax increases for entire spectrum of the middleclass thus constantly reducing the wealth of the middleclass.

  • Clean air, clean water, clean energy and healthy green space scattered throughout america.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 9 months ago

Slow down, you move too fast........ Reasonable opposition and discussion is vital. But no matter what they come up with, the only way I'm gonna feel 'good' about it and truly believe D.C. is on our side and knows exactly what they're talking about is if they take ownership by including themselves in the plan. If it's gonna be good enough for us, they should be under the exact same type of coverage and dealing with it just like our families do. Don't give us bologna while you're eating prime rib.

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years, 9 months ago

No one is "forcing" anyone to take the plan. You will still be able to continue to use your private health insurance if you want to. A government funded system is an option you could choose if you wanted to... not that you are forced to.

Fear monger much?

0

labmonkey 4 years, 9 months ago

Mr. President-

You should not sign anything into law that doesn't put Congress, yourself, and your family under the same plan you want to force upon millions of Americans.

0

Shane Garrett 4 years, 9 months ago

"Daschle says health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. Try asking Tom "Deutch" Daschle if he would exchange his current health care plan for the one Obama is asking congress to provide us.

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years, 9 months ago

The only thing more pleasant than passing a kidney stone is the joy of a $10,000 hospital bill for 12 hours of service.

What a great system we’ve got here. Why would we possibly want to change it?

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

"Dems still blaming republicans for their ineptitude?


I didn't see any blaming. Now, calling out obstructionists for being such is a different thing. How exactly is likening Obama and healthcare reform to a Napoleon war defeat contributing to the discussion? Or calling reform "socialism" and the Democrats in the WH and Congress a "cabal"?

I'm no Democrat, and as a 3rd-party observer it's pretty clear that the Republicans have no interest in serious discussion.

==========================

"I and others have offered multiple reasons why a government takeover of healthcare would lead to poorer health, higher costs and less innovation.

We don't have a perfect healthcare model here in United States, only the best in the world."


You are proving my point. More lies instead of real discussion.

There is no proposed "government takeover" of healthcare. Furthermore, anyone who could advocate the U.S. healthcare system as "the best in the world" is either ignorant to the reality of a great number of people or has an agenda. I think with you it might be both STRS.

0

salad 4 years, 9 months ago

All the scared-of-their-own-shadows conservatives should be comforted by the thought that even though we desparately need universal heathcare and reform of the system, it will never make it through Washingtons legislative grid-lock. Look at it this way: the Bushies had a complete lock on every branch of govt. for 8 years and could do NOTHING with regard to abortion legislation. Not....one....thing. They could persue kooky wars in the middle east, pee all over the constitution, ruin the economy, and sell the country to their corporate buddies, but legislation......fail. meanwhile we have the worst healthcare/$$$ spent in the world.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 9 months ago

logicsound09,

I and others have offered multiple reasons why a government takeover of healthcare would lead to poorer health, higher costs and less innovation.

We don't have a perfect healthcare model here in United States, only the best in the world.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 9 months ago

If Obama doesn't get this and cap and trade off the table and passed before recess, it's in trouble, and his second term chances are more diminished. I hope they both flop, obviously.

0

OeraLinda 4 years, 9 months ago

Dems still blaming republicans for their ineptitude?

Old habit dies hard, even when you have the white house and 60 in the senate.

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

Wally provides a perfect example of why we need intelligent opposition and discourse from the Republicans, rather than the sheep song: "socialism, baaaaaa..."

0

Shane Garrett 4 years, 9 months ago

From the Washington post: "As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus's political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year's reform debate.

Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator's often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes "Camp Baucus," a "trip for the whole family" that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.

To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show."

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

Godot equals intellectually bereft.

0

logicsound09 4 years, 9 months ago

STRS,

The president has backed off on his original August deadline, and I agree that enough time should be taken to get this right.

However, it is a balancing act, as while spending time is prudent to make sure the solution is ideal, spending time is also a political tactic for opposing/obstructing change altogether. And when the RNC chairperson comes out using words like "socialism" and "cabal", it doesn't sound like they want time to get the plan right. It sounds like they want to use time as a weapon against the success of any real reform.

It's too bad that most Republicans don't want to have a serious discussion on the issue, as it is a complex problem, and one that I, for one, would appreciate having a valid opposition to help tweak and improve proposals.

Unfortunately, most Republicans are more satisfied to bleet the same lies over and over, using this as a political weapon rather than an opportunity to serve the American people.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 9 months ago

Before we commit to spending 1,500 billion dollars (that's $1.5 trillion), shouldn't we consider the multiple competing plans' merits much more carefully? Lawmakers haven't even read the plans, but there seems to be a hurried rush to pass something, now.

Congress would be wise to not hasten its way through such a massive spending proposal in such a very short amount of time.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.