Obama address to Congress

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Special One

Yes, they do. Mid-term elections are less than fourteen months away. A large majority of the general public are buying into these lies.

It was wrong to go into Iraq, but popular at the time. That's why there wasn't a huge opposition to it from Democrats. Look at the PATRIOT act. it passed 99-1 in the Senate but is now extremely unpopular.

I find it interesting that the 44 Democrats who have opposed the bill have done so from the START.

Before any of these lies even got to the media or the American public.

Could it be that the those Democrats disagree with the bill based on actual context, and not just because of public pressure due to Republican tactics?

[The Special One]

I wonder what kind of % of campaign contributions comes from the health care industry. For the same reason, the climate change bill will fail next year because the oil and gas industry are far too powerful politically by virtue of campaign contributions.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I find it interesting that the 44 Democrats who have opposed the bill have done so from the START.

Before any of these lies even got to the media or the American public.

Could it be that the those Democrats disagree with the bill based on actual context, and not just because of public pressure due to Republican tactics?

Who knows. Democrats are no different from Republicans in that they allow special interests a seat at the table. Most are also in "safe" districts, so they're free to follow the lead of their big donors and cash cows all the way to the pasture at the end of the political lane.

It's, if anything, an even sadder system than ours.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

They matter because they've allowed the GOP to control the debate over this issue--and to do so with total fabrications and nonsense rather than, you know, constructive criticism and clear policy alternatives.

When people are showing up at rallies with Hitler moustaches painted on Obama's face--you know you're not dealing with the best and brightest here. The GOP went for the lowest common denominator and if nothing else they should be punished for that.

Calling them liars is a start--and it shows an assertiveness that I think this presidency has needed for a while. They ARE liars. And those who believe their lies are morons. Let's call a spade a spade.

Maybe the Democrats would be better served to actual 'present' the bill, instead of just trying to use fear and intimidation, similar to what the Republicans are doing....to try and force it through.

Obama told the whole world how partisan politics weren't going to be a part of his administration, and now with his first challenge, he runs crying to the media that the Republicans are the reason he can't get his health care bill passed.

There are 'tons' of Democrats who are saying he should start over from the beginning. Is he doing that? No. Instead he's choosing to engage in partisan politics and blame the Republicans for him not being able to pass his health care bill. Either he is ridiculously stupid, or extremely arrogant. Take your pick.

Because on one hand you have numerous Democrats saying that he should start from the beginning, and they'll work with him to get something they can ALL agree on, and on the other hand you have the choice to ignore them, and blame the Republicans instead.

Not to say that the Republicans haven't been anything but blatant ######s from the beginning. They have, but it really shouldn't matter. If the Democrats are concerned about the spending on the bill, which they should be, that isn't the fault of the Republicans for lying to the American pubic about how much the bill would cost. The CBO did that.

And I could keep going down the list with some of the 'official' concerns many Democrats talked about.

Just in case you were wondering, 'end of life' schemes weren't part of that list.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Who knows. Democrats are no different from Republicans in that they allow special interests a seat at the table. Most are also in "safe" districts, so they're free to follow the lead of their big donors and cash cows all the way to the pasture at the end of the political lane.

It's, if anything, an even sadder system than ours.

Actually, blue dog Democrats are a lot different from the rest of the Republicans and Democrats.

And a lot of the politicians opposing this bill are blue-dog Democrats.

Sure, they will be looking out for their districts and the people they represent, but none of that matters considering we're talking about a bill that would effect the country as a WHOLE.

This isn't a debate as to whether or not the funding to food stamps should be cut back.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I was talking to my cousin in California today and she gave me two extreme examples of two people who recently got laid off in the airline industry.

One guy has a wife and 4 daughters. He's planned ahead on his $48 per hour salary and has health insurance on his family that he's paying for from his savings and his wifes job as a nurse. The other guy has a wife and 3 kids , loaded up his Ranger Bass Boat over the Labor Day weekend and gripes about not having health insurance covereage for his family because he can't afford it. He can however afford the Ranger Bass Boat.

Also she said using President Obamas figure last night of 30 million uninsured Americans, that's 10% of our Population if we're at 300 Million Americans, which means that 90% of Americans have insurance.

Do we really think it's a good thing to totally overhaul a system that's affording coverage to 90% of the populace?

And when you're making $48/hour, you have an option of putting large sums of money away into savings and using that to help when you lose your job.

But what about the people who are making 15-20 dollars an hour and barely scraping by? Or someone self employed, who runs his own business that's slagging in a weak economy? You pay the bills, you buy food for your family, and you buy gas for your vehicle to get to work, and when that's done, you're lucky to have money left in your wallet at all.

And for many people, the coverage is there currently--but it only covers the barest minimum. Once you actually have something wrong with you, the cost goes way up.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Actually, blue dog Democrats are a lot different from the rest of the Republicans and Democrats.

And a lot of the politicians opposing this bill are blue-dog Democrats.

Sure, they will be looking out for their districts and the people they represent, but none of that matters considering we're talking about a bill that would effect the country as a WHOLE.

This isn't a debate as to whether or not the funding to food stamps should be cut back.

So... the people who oppose the bill are doing it out of altruism, and those who are promoting it are beholden to special interests?

Look--the bill sucks. You won't get much argument from me on that. But it's marginally better than doing nothing at all, which is the alternative from both blue dogs and Republicans. The blue dogs do have one thing going for them--they're not spreading lies or comparing Obama to Hitler. But they are acting like political cowards, making what they perceive is the safe choice to avoid sticking their own necks out to benefit the country.

There are no good guys in this fight, Azure. One day you'll be cynical like me.

[Azure]

No, I'm saying that it is quite possible that some of the Democrats opposing this bill are doing so because the bill actually sucks.

Thats all.

I don't think passing a health care bill simply because it 'might' change SOME things is a very good. Especially considering how much Medicare has cost the US in the past 40 years.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think passing a health care bill simply because it 'might' change SOME things is a very good. Especially considering how much Medicare has cost the US in the past 40 years.

Well, for me there are two issues (and btw, I'm not nearly as convinced as you that Medicare is a terrible program..) that any health care bill needs to address. Access and rising costs.

This bill addresses the first and not the second. Another possibility would have been to address the second but not the first, but that would have been unpopular.

The GOP's preferred alternative is to address neither, and allow a health care industry propped up by the government to continue making billions of dollars on the backs of consumers without guaranteeing them access to services. That's unacceptable to me.

Under this bill, they'll still be making billions of dollars. Now they'll have to provide access to some people that might not otherwise be able to afford it. But costs may go up too. So it's a net good in my view, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to love it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I'm just making the point that high taxes in the U.S. are a result of the defense budget.

Solely? Hardly.

[Azure]

I'm not saying Medicare is a terrible program. It might be a good program even, but there is a HUGE problem with the amount of money it is costing.

I don't see how this current bill being proposed is any different. And if I run some numbers based on what the cost was estimated to be for Medicare, and what it actually was, and use the percentage increase to do the same thing with this current bill, the cost is something like $65 trillion by 2050.

And that is without calculating in how many people were on Medicare at the beginning. Right now there are 45 million on it, IIRC, which would be about how many people Obamacare would cover.

So, the numbers could actually be HIGHER.

Unless of course you trust the government to not underestimate costs.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

As a Canadian, I read this and think it can't be any worse than what the 'free market' is already doing.

If they are going to go broke, wouldn't you rather have healthcare along the way?

Very recent history suggests to me that any change from the current system would be a welcome, cheaper solution. Private healthcare in the states looks exactly like you would expect an unregulated large segment of the economy might look.

If you're going to hell, you might as well bring snacks.

Have never said the status quo is peachy. But I do not agree that anything is better than the status quo. That little saying gets thrown out a lot (you didn't exactly say it) and it's hogwash. ANYTHING is better than what we have now. Apply that universally and 99.999999999999/100 it's hogwash. Things can always get worse and they can usually get better too.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not saying Medicare is a terrible program. It might be a good program even, but there is a HUGE problem with the amount of money it is costing.

I don't see how this current bill being proposed is any different. And if I run some numbers based on what the cost was estimated to be for Medicare, and what it actually was, and use the percentage increase to do the same thing with this current bill, the cost is something like $65 trillion by 2050.

And that is without calculating in how many people were on Medicare at the beginning. Right now there are 45 million on it, IIRC, which would be about how many people Obamacare would cover.

So, the numbers could actually be HIGHER.

Unless of course you trust the government to not underestimate costs.

You are talking as if people are disagreeing with you.

I think this subsidy of private insurance won't work, and your numbers suggest it would be prohibitively expensive - yet you scoff at a single payer system.

Do you support the Republican "nothing to see here, just keep paying through the nose" stance?

[Azure]

Personally I think that 'anything is better than status quo' is exactly the link of thinking Obama and his legislators are using. And it prohibits them from proposing proper reform.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

And it prohibits them from proposing proper reform.

Please expand on what you consider proper reform to be.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You are talking as if people are disagreeing with you.

I think this subsidy of private insurance won't work, and your numbers suggest it would be prohibitively expensive - yet you scoff at a single payer system.

Do you support the Republican "nothing to see here, just keep paying through the nose" stance?

No, I said the single-payer system might be able to work if it were left up to the states.

Right now I support about 1% of what the Republicans are doing/saying.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Personally I think that 'anything is better than status quo' is exactly the link of thinking Obama and his legislators are using. And it prohibits them from proposing proper reform.

That could be true. My own view isn't so much "anything is better than the status quo" as much as it is "the worst alternative is to do nothing." I think it's very important to realize that in the long term the current multi-headed hydra that the U.S. calls a health care system is going to bankrupt their country--and the middle-class will be first over the cliff.

[Azure]

Well I sure as hell hope Capital Hill realizes that simply doing nothing isn't going to solve a damn thing either.

I absolutely agree that something needs to be done. Just don't agree with what is being proposed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Please expand on what you consider proper reform to be.

Well, assuming that we won't see a state run public option....

1. Retain private insurance; no government option.

2. Require everyone who is able to afford it to buy it. Subsidize those who can't. Penalize those who won't. Subsidized plan is "no frills" and may involve rationing.

3. End employer-provided health care. Provide additional compensation equivalent to existing health care costs to employees. Individuals pay for their own insurance.

4. Limit liabilities. Drive down costs associated with lawsuit avoidance.

5. Require insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions with surcharges not to exceed 100%. For unusual cases, create an assigned risk pool to distribute risk evenly among insurers. For statistically exceptional costs arising from these cases, allow insurers a compensating tax deduction.

6. Eliminate/forbid state regulation of medical insurance. Increase competition by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.

7. People retain the right to go outside their plan and buy services on the open market.

8. Develop national health information infrastructure to maintain accurate health records on all people. Government funds, provides infrastructure; insurers manage data. Government FORBIDDEN to access patient data. Individuals able to review their own health records.

9. Tort reform.

10. Shoot everyone who protests, thereby eliminating half the population, thereby eliminating most of the costs associated with healthcare.

11. Burn down Washington DC. The stench coming from that place probably makes 10 million people sick and they are only a burden on the system.

12. Elect me for President!

13. ARRRGGGG!!!!

[Gozer]

Don't agree with everything, but thanks for the excellent response!

edit: what's tort?