Obama on Letterman....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Based on the info in your quote the taxpayers are already paying for these services (through higher premiums) - Obama is only shifting the responsibility to those who are receiving them (the currently uninsured).

They're not paying for them if they don't want too.

And if they don't want too, nobody is fining them.

Obama wants to force them to pay for it, and if they don't they'll be fined.

Win/win for the government.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

They're not paying for them if they don't want too.

And if they don't want too, nobody is fining them.

Obama wants to force them to pay for it, and if they don't they'll be fined.

Win/win for the government.

Obama sees one group of people paying extra for insurance to subsidize another group of people's health care and he thinks that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

I agree.

Do you disagree? or do you have a better solution?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Obama is a lot like my best friend - eloquent, very perceptive, seems to know what needs to be done... in short, talks a great game, but DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. He could be a great leader, but great leaders don't delegate their leadership to Nancy Pelosi.
Gad, I haven't watched Letterman in about 10 years...

Obama has done a lot to improve America's image worldwide. He's brought transperency back to the White House. He has worked to close Guantanamo Bay.

Right now, he's working on overhauling a country's of 300 million healthcare, in a legislation process that is slow as molasses by design and is slower in practice. But, you're right, it has been months and it's not even done yet?! Failure.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I think that the biggest victory for the American people (eventhough the left won't realize it) will be if Obama fails to deliver his promises and accomplishes very little.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Obama has done a lot to improve America's image worldwide. He's brought transperency back to the White House. He has worked to close Guantanamo Bay.

Right now, he's working on overhauling a country's of 300 million healthcare, in a legislation process that is slow as molasses by design and is slower in practice. But, you're right, it has been months and it's not even done yet?! Failure.

All the "achievents" have been by default - i.e. just by being different from the guy before. He hasn't actually done anything except talk. Health care reform and carbon cap & trade are excellent goals, except the White House has abrogated the leadership on both to Congress. I would have liked to have seen Obama actually take the lead on developing the legislation instead of letting the morons/crooks that fill the House run with it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Obama sees one group of people paying extra for insurance to subsidize another group of people's health care and he thinks that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

I agree.

Do you disagree? or do you have a better solution?

Do I disagree with backhanded scheme of fines and restrictions designed to maneuver people into the public option?

Absolutely.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Obama has done a lot to improve America's image worldwide. He's brought transperency back to the White House. He has worked to close Guantanamo Bay.

Right now, he's working on overhauling a country's of 300 million healthcare, in a legislation process that is slow as molasses by design and is slower in practice. But, you're right, it has been months and it's not even done yet?! Failure.

You mean the 2009 World Apology Tour that "bolstered" America's image by denigrating it to beneath the image of Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, et al.

He has not brought transparency to the White House - he has PROMISED to do that, but has no intention (based on his actions) of following through. As well he shouldn't considering who he's got working in his Cabinet.

I'd suggest that it's not the fact he is attempting to overhaul healthcare; it's how he's doing it. He's attempted ramming it through without reading; now he's doing the Salesman-in-Chief routine running the gamut of talkshows. It's not the topic, it's the approach.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do I disagree with backhanded scheme of fines and restrictions designed to maneuver people into the public option?

Absolutely.

Backhanded?

How could he make it more forehanded than "get insurance or chip into the same 'welfare pot' that the insured have to pay into" ?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I am waiting to see how he preforms the magic trick of a new govt run health care plan that wont cost middle income taxpayers anything - he plans on funding it through cuts of medicare (wont add a dime to the deficit). If you want to watch Obama in action, watch George Stephanopoulos interview of him on abcnews.com where he says forcing some americans to pay for govt healthcare is not the same as a new tax. Even left humping Greek scratches his head over that one.

this i don't understand. Americans already pay more than any other industrialized nation for healthcare and their quality of life is lower, the right wing keeps screaming about tax increases to pay for this new system when a public healthcare system is proven to be cheaper than a private one. it's fear mongering at it's very lowest

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Backhanded?

How could he make it more forehanded than "get insurance or chip into the same 'welfare pot' that the insured have to pay into" ?

Since when should anyone be forced to buy health care insurance?

Do we have to do that here in Alberta?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Since when should anyone be forced to buy health care insurance?

Do we have to do that here in Alberta?

Sure, taxes.

Speaking of backhanded....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do I disagree with backhanded scheme of fines and restrictions designed to maneuver people into the public option?

Absolutely.

You know, I actually don't love Obama's health care plan, if we can even call it "his." But you know what is ten times dumber than his health care plan?

The shrill, sensationalist scare tactics of the right in this whole business. They've shown that they lack any sense of decency whatsoever--from media figures like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, to actual legislators like Joe Wilson... they've shown that they're not above ANY of the following tactics to block this bill:
1. Lying outright (death panels, health care for illegal immigrants)
2. Race-Baiting
3. Making absurd comparisons to Hitler (Hitler wanted Universal Health Care! AAAAAA!!! Be AFRAID!!!!!)
4. Shouting down their opponents instead of fostering real debate on the issue.

And you know what the ultimate result of all this idiocy will be? That the congressional democrats will pass their own bill, which amounts in Bill Maher's words to "a blowjob for the insurance industry" and they will use Barack Obama as political cover.

All because the right can't even bring themselves to participate in a genuine debate over this issue, preferring to resort to scare tactics, dirty politics and appeals to actual debate, or better yet, to participation in the process, which is a course that has been offered to them multiple times.

Half of what the right says about this bill is complete B.S., while the other half is distorted half-truths. Meanwhile, there are real things that are wrong with it that aren't being addressed because the oxygen has been sucked out of the room by sign-waving cretins, clinically insane birthers, conspiracy theorists and race-baiters.

I guess what I'm saying, Azure, is this: be sure you're backing the right horse here. There may not be any good guys in this fight (I remain cynically convinced that there aren't--certainly not congressional Democrats). But there are bad guys--and it's pretty easy to see who they are.

To address your specific point: you can't call a mandatory insurance policy a "tax increase" without also calling health insurance itself a tax. Once you've accepted that it is a tax (and it most certainly is, the only difference being that the proceeds go to private corporations and not the government) then you must also accept that more equitable distribution of cost and of risk will on balance reduce the tax burden on the American middle-class. It's simple math.

That doesn't make this a good bill--it's a bit of a nightmare, honestly--I just don't know what would have been better other than blowing the whole thing up and starting over. But the public option is perhaps the only good thing about it, and making specious mathematical arguments against it is, in my view, counterproductive when so much of the rest of the bill contains mountains of insurance-company fellatio.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Since when should anyone be forced to buy health care insurance?

Do we have to do that here in Alberta?

Wait, what? Are you serious?!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You mean the 2009 World Apology Tour that "bolstered" America's image by denigrating it to beneath the image of Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, et al.

He has not brought transparency to the White House - he has PROMISED to do that, but has no intention (based on his actions) of following through. As well he shouldn't considering who he's got working in his Cabinet.

I'd suggest that it's not the fact he is attempting to overhaul healthcare; it's how he's doing it. He's attempted ramming it through without reading; now he's doing the Salesman-in-Chief routine running the gamut of talkshows. It's not the topic, it's the approach.

Obama: My new plan feeds starving children and rescues them from Tigers.

zuluking: It's not what he's doing it, it's how he's doing it. Seriously, tranquilizing the Tigers instead of just shooting them? Feeding the children hot dogs instead of hamburgers? What a failure!

[Gozer]

The real issue, or "new tax" as its being called, is that people who chose to be insured have to pay for the costs of those who do not chose to be insured. The victims (i.e. those who's rights are being infringed upon) are the insured.

If you don't want to be insured, fine, but you can't opt out of having to help out with the costs of the uninsured. Thus, the fine.
If a fine for being uninsured "compels" people to sign up for (public or private) insurance then I don't see that situation as unpleasant nor that consumer a victim.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Wait, what? Are you serious?!

Back when we had to pay premiums in order to get health care coverage, were people forced to pay?

I even remember a couple friends working on the oil rigs who weren't paying premiums and we had a discussion as to whether or not they would be refused treatment as a result.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The real issue, or "new tax" as its being called, is that people who chose to be insured have to pay for the costs of those who do not chose to be insured. The victims (i.e. those who's rights are being infringed upon) are the insured.

If you don't want to be insured, fine, but you can't opt out of having to help out with the costs of the uninsured. Thus, the fine.
If a fine for being uninsured "compels" people to sign up for (public or private) insurance then I don't see that situation as unpleasant nor that consumer a victim.

Uh, if you don't have insurance, you pay for the health care, all of it, when you need it.

That is a risk you take. Like not having car insurance. Get into a wreck? You pay for it out of your own pocket.

Which is why I don't see the fine as anything else than a backhanded way by the government to force people into public insurance.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Obama: My new plan feeds starving children and rescues them from Tigers.

zuluking: It's not what he's doing it, it's how he's doing it. Seriously, tranquilizing the Tigers instead of just shooting them? Feeding the children hot dogs instead of hamburgers? What a failure!

It is how he's doing it. Talking about transparency in the government and running out and appointing racist nutjobs or conspiracy theorists doesn't exactly scream transparency.

If there is anything we should have learned from Bush it was that the people you hire to work in your administration can shape your policy, rightly or wrongly. To simply ignore that is to repeat the same mistakes that were made the past 8 years.

And that is exactly why some of us are not seeing the 'change' here.

Of course, one must also admit that part of the reason people are lashing out against Obama is because of their distrust(rightly so)...in the government in general. Obama, being head of the government gets hit as a result.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Back when we had to pay premiums in order to get health care coverage, were people forced to pay?

I even remember a couple friends working on the oil rigs who weren't paying premiums and we had a discussion as to whether or not they would be refused treatment as a result.

You are not refused treatment, but you do have to pay the premiums if they're charged. Alberta doesn't have a premium any more, but that's a relatively recent development.

The irony of your post was that the health care system in Canada is effectively a public insurance system with mandatory enrollment that reduces costs by spreading risk around equitably. It's different from the "public option" in the sense that it doesn't have the cumbersome billing bureaucracy that U.S. health care requires, but the fundamental model is the same. I think the common misconception is that we have true "public" health care in Canada--most health care providers in Canada are private operators who bill the government insurance agency for the care that they provide.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Back when we had to pay premiums in order to get health care coverage, were people forced to pay?

Yes.

If you couldn't pay then the gov't would cover it for you - which means every other taxpayer would chip in to cover it.

Damn near exactly what Obama is saying.

Your buddies on the rigs are exactly who Obama is "targeting" - people that can pay but choose not to and John Q Familyman has to shoulder even more of the burden.