The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. FYI......Both Specter and Harkin had 'expert' staff members nearby to assist them. It didn't help.

2. A U.S. senator should know about a news story that has been given high billing for over a week. I don't hold you to that same standard given that I'm sure you have better things to do.

1. well then that's embarassing. egg on their face and all that

2. but my point is, given that i haven't heard about it, how "high" has the billing been in the mainstream media? given that they probably don't have staffers obsessively checking drudge+dailykos and whatever else (one can argue maybe they should, but that's a different argument). i mean if i haven't heard about the [email protected] thing on the national news this week at all, how high a billing has it gotten? has it only gotten "high billing" among a certain small segment of the population?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

With such passion and seperate values on each side, is the time coming for the U.S. to spilt?

We've been at that point for a long time. In all seriousness though (as opposed to me joking about this point earlier), the devil is in the details. It'd be like the world's biggest custody battle.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Everyone gone a little crazy. It does bring up an interesting question to me. With such passion and seperate values on each side, is the time coming for the U.S. to spilt?

What is really scary to me is that the two sides battle back and forth about how to best spend everyone's money and are ready to do battle over whether to spend it on health care/cap&trade or wars/bank bailouts. In the meantime there is a party that opposes all of this nonsense that everyone says they agree with in principle but "they will never win". Sounds a lot like the attitude of the pawns on a chessboard to me.

[Galaxy]

I've always been curious, what are the profit margins for the insurance companies?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Everyone gone a little crazy. It does bring up an interesting question to me. With such passion and seperate values on each side, is the time coming for the U.S. to spilt?

crazy? you all realize that the whole series of "dividing" posts was done in mock-seriousness right?

i mean sure i'd take that division in a heartbeat, as i'm sure Jon would, but we weren't having the back-and-forth all and with a shit-ton of malice. it was more of an intellectual-exercise.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I've always been curious, what are the profit margins for the insurance companies?

anyone want to take a stab at this? i saw those numbers last night on a program, but i'm not sure about the broader numbers and the longer-term ones.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but my point is, given that i haven't heard about it, how "high" has the billing been in the mainstream media? given that they probably don't have staffers obsessively checking drudge+dailykos and whatever else (one can argue maybe they should, but that's a different argument). i mean if i haven't heard about the [email protected] thing on the national news this week at all, how high a billing has it gotten? has it only gotten "high billing" among a certain small segment of the population?

I'm just going to assume you've been busy the past week or so. It's been on all the major news websites and I've seen 3 minute segments about it on CBS and ABC Nightly News programs over the past week. I'm honestly not sure how a politician would not know about it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm just going to assume you've been busy the past week or so. It's been on all the major news websites and I've seen 3 minute segments about it on CBS and ABC Nightly News programs over the past week. I'm honestly not sure how a politician would not know about it.

i have been pretty damn busy...i probably haven't watched as much of the news as normal.

guess i'll take your word for it.

ohhh, so is this the whole thing about how they want to build up an email list of people who disagree?

i think it's pretty clear that it was more innocent than that - it was an attempt to gather information about the misinformation and the confusion being spread about the bill so that the President could specifically address those points in televised addresses.

but i can also clearly see how that could be latched-onto by opponents of the administration as "they want you to rat out your neighbors who disagree with healthcare."

i of course would argue (and to be 100% honest had the Bush administration done the same thing i'd argue the same way) that there is no malicious intent behind it and it was simply an attempt to as I said, gather information in order to specifically address points of confusion/misinformation.

note: i'm not even going to open the can of worms that was all the "spy on your neighbor" stuff included in the Patriot Act

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think we should make them pass a test, frankly. but then again i'm also in favor of making people pass a test in order to vote.

you don't think that's what is going on (re: big pharma and insurance companies)??

all the campaign contributions that they make? all of the advocacy groups that are throwing out all of these fabricated things that are not even in the bill that are funded by Pfizer, etc?

they want to kill it because it threatens their profits, it's crystal clear.

believe me - they don't want to kill it because it's bad for you. they don't give a shit about you. if they did they wouldn't have turned 95% of all surgeries into outpatient surgeries in order to try to cut costs, or constantly be making you jump through hoops in order to get claims approved. all they care about is the bottom line.

You know, there was a time in our nation's history when you DID have to pass a test in some states in order to vote. I didn't realize you and Jon were on the same side of that issue.

As to drug and insurance companies getting people to go to these meetings... no, I don't think that's what's happening, at least not on a large scale. Look at the signs at these events for instance... the professionally made signs are largely the work of the supporters of Obamacare, while the opponents have their handmade signs (often complete with spelling mistakes). I also know several people (including one hard-core Obama supporter) who are pissed off enough about these proposals that they're hoping our congressman schedules a town hall meeting so they can attend.

As for insurance companies only caring about the bottom line... this is why I continually say that health care is NOT a right. We can call it a right, we can really really want it to be a right, we can believe that it's a right. It's not. Healthcare is a service, and everybody from doctors to drug companies to insurance providers to the government will continue to see it that way.

Frankly, that's the biggest reason I'm opposed to any wholesale changes right now... until we get over this "healthcare is a right" nonsense I don't think any changes that we make will be beneficial to the overall system.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I would also note that someone posed a question of Specter asking his opinion on the [email protected] situation that's been in the news quite a bit over the past week or so. Specter had no idea what the questioner was even talking about. Seriously?

(so, uh, what the heck is this story that "everyone" keeps talking about- I have no idea either)

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Everyone gone a little crazy. It does bring up an interesting question to me. With such passion and seperate values on each side, is the time coming for the U.S. to spilt?

Plus the liberal posters on this board can only argue talking points with extreme cases like JonMidGa and MBBF (sometimes). But when somebody comes on and gives a normal person who has been working 15 years and paying taxes point of view they ignore it. There are no democratic talking points for why my health insurance costs should go up and quality should go down just because other people are in situations where they don't have it. (Whether that is because they have been laid off or more likely because they choose to live off the government's tit)

[panerd]

I meant that last post as a quasi-complement MBBF. Your sports knowledge and alligence is 100% correct and you seem to be willing to listen to the other sides views on political ideas. (Even though you are wrong a lot more on politics than sports. )

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by panerd

Plus the liberal posters on this board can only argue talking points with extreme cases like JonMidGa and MBBF (sometimes). But when somebody comes on and gives a normal person who has been working 15 years and paying taxes point of view they ignore it. There are no democratic talking points for why my health insurance costs should go up and quality should go down just because other people are in situations where they don't have it. (Whether that is because they have been laid off or more likely because they choose to live off the government's tit)

I don't mean just on FOFC, but in the U.S. in general.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

I meant that last post as a quasi-complement MBBF. Your sports knowledge and alligence is 100% correct and you seem to be willing to listen to the other sides views on political ideas. (Even though you are wrong a lot more on politics than sports. )

I'll take what I can get.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Plus the liberal posters on this board can only argue talking points with extreme cases like JonMidGa and MBBF (sometimes). But when somebody comes on and gives a normal person who has been working 15 years and paying taxes point of view they ignore it. There are no democratic talking points for why my health insurance costs should go up and quality should go down just because other people are in situations where they don't have it. (Whether that is because they have been laid off or more likely because they choose to live off the government's tit)

why will your costs go up? it's not a situation of "scrapping what is there and replacing it with a 100% government program" at this point. it's a case of "creating a government option that people can opt-into IF THEY WANT TO", at least as far as I understand what they are shooting for now, right?

your costs will continue to go up under your current plan as well though, don't discount that.

healthcare takes up a ridiculous (and growing) amount of people's paychecks. way more than it should. and better preventive care earlier would reduce the (vastly more costly) care later.

Health care reform fact or fiction part one: Will costs go up under reform?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I don't mean just on FOFC, but in the U.S. in general.

Is that really true though either? In my group of friends we have a liberal blowhard and a conservative guy who actually plays poker with a Ronald Reagan poker marker. But the rest of us are pretty much down the middle. (lean a little more to the right. We actually have jobs and don't like paying high taxes for lazy asses that don't) We think a lot of Obama's ideas are noble and in a perfect world would be great. But realize that his logic for where the money is coming from is no different than the one friend who makes $25,000 a year, drives a '09 Mustang, and uses his credit card on every purchase.

I wouldn't believe everything the news media tries to convince you. Very few people I know gave a shit about Michael Jackson either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i have been pretty damn busy...i probably haven't watched as much of the news as normal.

guess i'll take your word for it.

ohhh, so is this the whole thing about how they want to build up an email list of people who disagree?

Yes, that was the extreme right spin of it. I'm not even talking about your beliefs on it. I'm just floored that a multi-term senator would be so disconnected from D.C. current events to not know anything about it and have a full staff that didn't inform him in any way about the situation. With that said, it didn't appear that Specter knew much about the health care bill either. It was pretty embarrassing.

I'd encourage both sides to listen to some of these meetings in their entirety. CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews are all offering live feeds of many of these meetings and they are very interesting to hear. The snippits that you get from various partisan sites or a news summary don't accurately portray the situation. There's a lot of very good questions being asked on both sides and a surprising number of senators on both sides of the aisle that are less informed on the bill than the voters asking the questions. It's somewhat scary to be honest.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Plus the liberal posters on this board can only argue talking points with extreme cases like JonMidGa and MBBF (sometimes). But when somebody comes on and gives a normal person who has been working 15 years and paying taxes point of view they ignore it. There are no democratic talking points for why my health insurance costs should go up and quality should go down just because other people are in situations where they don't have it. (Whether that is because they have been laid off or more likely because they choose to live off the government's tit)

i've been working and paying taxes for 12 years too, FWIW. Most of that working done in the retail industry, and now as a small business. So I know where you're coming from.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

why will your costs go up? it's not a situation of "scrapping what is there and replacing it with a 100% government program" at this point. it's a case of "creating a government option that people can opt-into IF THEY WANT TO", at least as far as I understand what they are shooting for now, right?

your costs will continue to go up under your current plan as well though, don't discount that.

Health care reform fact or fiction part one: Will costs go up under reform?

How do 50 million people joining the fold not increase costs? (or whatever the number of uninsured is)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

But realize that his logic for where the money is coming from is no different than the one friend who makes $25,000 a year, drives a '09 Mustang, and uses his credit card on every purchase.

Agree with this 100%, though I'd argue that the entire Congress AND the president is this dysfunctional rather than just Obama. He's only a portion of the problem relatively speaking.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by panerd

How do 50 million people joining the fold not increase costs? (or whatever the number of uninsured is)

Because (let me see if I have the President's statements right here) we can stop duplicating tests, and we can take the blue pill instead of the red pill for our heart disease because the blue pill is cheaper but works just as well!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agree with this 100%, though I'd argue that the entire Congress AND the president is this dysfunctional rather than just Obama. He's only a portion of the problem relatively speaking.

all politicians are. the (R)'s in the last go-round were no exception.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i've been working and paying taxes for 12 years too, FWIW. Most of that working done in the retail industry, and now as a small business. So I know where you're coming from.

I am a teacher and believe I am very sympathetic to the "little man". But truth be told a lot of the uninsured are lazy asses who won't get a job or don't want to take money they spend on new cars or other unnecessary items and spend it on their health. They know they will get bailed out if something catastrophic happens. I happen to be in the camp that feels like they are free to take that chance but I don't feel like my taxes need to help them out. (Just like I don't feel like I should help out adults on welfare, people who got ridiculous ARMS on their houses, people who are in massive credit card debt, etc) I used to be more empathetic but now feel like the money I earn should go towards my family.

I also work out at a gym that is next to a dialysis center. And actually watch as 400 pound people walk over to get treatment and people finish their cigarettes before going in. Does this describe everyone? No. But it does describe a lot of the people that are causing the massive health costs in this country and nobody wants to talk about actual responsibility that could bring down everyone’s costs.

[miked]

Originally Posted by panerd

How do 50 million people joining the fold not increase costs? (or whatever the number of uninsured is)

Do your costs never go up? I have Aetna (one of a select very few plans offered by my employer) and the monthly premiums go up every year, by at least 20% (not to mention what my employer is paying). For that, my copays have gone up from $15 to $25, my deductible is higher, my out of pocket max is higher, and I have to fight with the insurance companies on what some "expert" at their company says is experimental (you would think I would know this working in a hospital). And I have a good plan. I just don't see how adding a government plan (besides the costs to taxpayers) can increase your private premiums more than they already increase.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

all politicians are. the (R)'s in the last go-round were no exception.

Exactly but this is why I oppose almost all government spending. I don't know enough about the military and will take their word on it (though I am sure there is tremendous waste there as well), but everything else is a joke. As a teacher I am saddened by the amount of money that is wasted on education in this country and am pissed how I am held hostage by the NEA and the status quo to do nothing about it. It's always about the poor or the children and not bureaucratic fiscal mismanagement.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by miked

Do your costs never go up? I have Aetna (one of a select very few plans offered by my employer) and the monthly premiums go up every year, by at least 20% (not to mention what my employer is paying). For that, my copays have gone up from $15 to $25, my deductible is higher, my out of pocket max is higher, and I have to fight with the insurance companies on what some "expert" at their company says is experimental (you would think I would know this working in a hospital). And I have a good plan. I just don't see how adding a government plan (besides the costs to taxpayers) can increase your private premiums more than they already increase.

It impacts my taxes. I wish I paid less taxes not more.

[Flasch186]

some video out of Specter's meeting had a woman ask Arlen why it would be allowed for a 70 something man who develops cancer to be kicked out of the system in the Health Bill's plan.

Arlen couldnt have been more vociferous in his statement that it:

1. isnt true
2. is a lie
3. is a malicious lie


Not to generalize BUT when these 'scare' tactics get thrown around you end up not debating the truth in the bill (pro or con) but these ridiculous ripples caused by the likes of Rush and Palin riling some people up and watching the viral rumor spread no matter how wrong or inaccurate it is.

I am certain that there is probably video of a really intelligent question that stumped Arlen too (MBBF) but the if it bleeds it leads, the ratings dont spike on vanilla, and people dont spread the mundane.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

In the meantime there is a party that opposes all of this nonsense that everyone says they agree with in principle but "they will never win".

But that same party (taking the huge leap that you mean the obvious) is even further from my p.o.v. on issues I hold even more dear, so they aren't remotely an option.

Separately, there still seems to be a pretty big gap in the composition of the Lib. Party from state to state, as it spent a good while in Georgia being the all-encompassing banner for everything from Greens to IDon'tknowwhats to run of the mill contrarians.

Let's run the math here. Let's say that it's 60/40 Dems to Reps today, just to pick a number.

Let's say, being very generous, that it's only 1/3rd true believers among the D's and 1/2 true believers among the R's. That would make 40+20 available to the Libs. So they have a theoretical shot at 60% of the votes max.
D's have a theoretical shot at 60+20 or 80%, R's have a shot at the same 40+20 plus have a better brand awareness, have longer organizational history, and have a great deal more experience at playing the game portion of winning elections. And that's without anyone really bothering to expose every flaw in the Lib. party or its candidates.

There's nothing in that equation that indicates a legitimate chance any time in the near future.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But that same party (taking the huge leap that you mean the obvious) is even further from my p.o.v. on issues I hold even more dear, so they aren't remotely an option.

Separately, there still seems to be a pretty big gap in the composition of the Lib. Party from state to state, as it spent a good while in Georgia being the all-encompassing banner for everything from Greens to IDon'tknowwhats to run of the mill contrarians.

Let's run the math here. Let's say that it's 60/40 Dems to Reps today, just to pick a number.

Let's say, being very generous, that it's only 1/3rd true believers among the D's and 1/2 true believers among the R's. That would make 40+20 available to the Libs. So they have a theoretical shot at 60% of the votes max.
D's have a theoretical shot at 60+20 or 80%, R's have a shot at the same 40+20 plus have a better brand awareness, have longer organizational history, and have a great deal more experience at playing the game portion of winning elections. And that's without anyone really bothering to expose every flaw in the Lib. party or its candidates.

There's nothing in that equation that indicates a legitimate chance any time in the near future.

i would take issue with the objectiveness of some of what you cited (of course, and of course i would have expected you to slant the wording the way you did to portray your chosen party more positively) but i think your core premise is sound, that there's not a legitimate shot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Arlen couldnt have been more vociferous in his statement that it: 1. isnt true 2. is a lie 3. is a malicious lie
... you end up not debating the truth in the bill

Whose "truth" are you referring to? Much of the plan, whether you're pro or con, relies on estimates, assumptions, and a whole lot of guess work. Hopefully that's clear to pretty much everyone regardless of their feelings on the bill, its intentions, or its actual outcome.

At that point it becomes a matter of whose judgment, or even whose best guess, you trust more to accurately reflect the eventual "truth".

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Whose "truth" are you referring to? Much of the plan, whether you're pro or con, relies on estimates, assumptions, and a whole lot of guess work. Hopefully that's clear to pretty much everyone regardless of their feelings on the bill, its intentions, or its actual outcome.

At that point it becomes a matter of whose judgment, or even whose best guess, you trust more to accurately reflect the eventual "truth".

I guess thats my point.

people end up having to counter ridiculous 'rumor' and 'scare tactics' instead of debating that which adds up to a 'truth' in the bill regardless of pov.

ty

[DaddyTorgo]

I think it's pretty clear that nobody's talking about booting 70 year olds with terminal illnessess out of the government plan.

But i guess it all depends on just how anti-administration and "evil government conspiracy" you are.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But that same party (taking the huge leap that you mean the obvious) is even further from my p.o.v. on issues I hold even more dear, so they aren't remotely an option.

Separately, there still seems to be a pretty big gap in the composition of the Lib. Party from state to state, as it spent a good while in Georgia being the all-encompassing banner for everything from Greens to IDon'tknowwhats to run of the mill contrarians.

Let's run the math here. Let's say that it's 60/40 Dems to Reps today, just to pick a number.

Let's say, being very generous, that it's only 1/3rd true believers among the D's and 1/2 true believers among the R's. That would make 40+20 available to the Libs. So they have a theoretical shot at 60% of the votes max.
D's have a theoretical shot at 60+20 or 80%, R's have a shot at the same 40+20 plus have a better brand awareness, have longer organizational history, and have a great deal more experience at playing the game portion of winning elections. And that's without anyone really bothering to expose every flaw in the Lib. party or its candidates.

There's nothing in that equation that indicates a legitimate chance any time in the near future.

I do respect your conservative views and believe me you are very consistent. But my unscientific reasoning says that if the Libertarian principles of less spending were to become more accepted in the media that a lot of people would be willing to put social issues to the side and vote with their pocketbooks(though personally I feel like a lot of people would probably agree with their stance on social issues) I think money matters to like 90% of this country and that would trump any bogus abortion/religion/gay rights debate.

I tend to think Ron Paul is kind of a kook but there is a show on Fox News Online called Freedom Watch that really hits home with me. Why Fox News can’t take an hour a week away from Michael Jackson coverage or replaying the town hall arguments for the hundredth time to put this on the actual network baffles me. I tend to think there is a more diabolical explanation than just ratings.

[Flasch186]

Pres' town hall might be pretty cantankerous and possibly a more forceful spin on his opinion and plan.

Changed the name of it from "Health Care Reform" to "Health Insurnce Reform". Smart marketing move?

we'll see. Im watching from home while if MBBF looks up at the lunchroom TV he can watch too

[DaddyTorgo]

i wanted to dvr it but forgot. i'll hopefully catch a rerun later

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think it's pretty clear that nobody's talking about booting 70 year olds with terminal illnessess out of the government plan.

But i guess it all depends on just how anti-administration and "evil government conspiracy" you are.

On the other side, I think a lot people find the rosey promises about the plan just as ridiculous, and just as dishonest, as some of the scenerios offered by the detractors.

Though on the other hand, where can I sign up for the plan that boots 70 year olds with terminal illness? That's change I can believe in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

we'll see. Im watching from home while if MBBF looks up at the lunchroom TV he can watch too

I DID see it in the lunch room right after I finished watching a slow-speed car chase on MSNBC. Thankfully, the guy was arrested just before Obama took the stage.

It's a pretty boring town hall overall. You're not going to see many sparks in a presidential town hall.

[Flasch186]

He is asking for and received questions from people against the plan as they know it. He has also voiced support for the debates at other town halls. He has discounted the idea of 'death panels' and explained it as a group of health experts who can set up a delivery guideline for better usage of testing, info delivery, etc. He's reiterated that people with insurance now wont lose it. He talked about the ability for people to get their insurance off of a competitive exchange that would have one option within the exchange being the gov't option. He's talked about that the new plan would have to be self-sustaining. Talked about closing loopholes wherein prescription drug co. get subsidies in medicare. etc etc etc.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

He is asking for and received questions from people against the plan as they know it. He has also voiced support for the debates at other town halls. He has discounted the idea of 'death panels' and explained it as a group of health experts who can set up a delivery guideline for better usage of testing, info delivery, etc. He's reiterated that people with insurance now wont lose it. He talked about the ability for people to get their insurance off of a competitive exchange that would have one option within the exchange being the gov't option. He's talked about that the new plan would have to be self-sustaining. Talked about closing loopholes wherein prescription drug co. get subsidies in medicare. etc etc etc.

In summary, we spent 1:15 hearing the party line including more Bush-bashing. Good to see that he can still be brought out as a punching dummy when the Democratic message falls on deaf ear.

Lots of sarcasm that played to the party line as well. I'm glad he thinks this is a joking matter. I don't. I haven't seen any congressional members that think it's a joke either when they're getting taken to the woodshed by concerned citizens in their local areas.

[Flasch186]

listen, if you think he's a liar than, like during the campaigns, there really isnt any point in debating or choosing one candidate over the other since you dont 'believe' one vs. the other. I get it. I mean you thought McCain was going to win and that Obama would hand the keys to the car to Al Qaeda. Ok, we get it.

From the video Im seeing, BTW, is most of the anger at the Health bill has people yelling about, "dismantling of 'our' country", "we're becoming socialist Russsia" etc...wherein theyre not arguing about the pros and cons of the Health Care Reform Bill but their anger about a larger umbrella. Unlike MBBF's spin on that I'd say that that does a disservice to everyone because the complaint about the bill itself gets lost in a larger painting.

fortunately or unfortunately the GOP lost the election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

listen, if you think he's a liar than, like during the campaigns, there really isnt any point in debating or choosing one candidate over the other since you dont 'believe' one vs. the other. I get it. I mean you thought McCain was going to win and that Obama would hand the keys to the car to Al Qaeda. Ok, we get it.

Anyone who thought there would be any real form of opposing questions in that forum was fooling themselves. Those gatherings are much more controlled. The Secret Service is there. The microphone is taken away after the initial question, not allowing for any follow up questions to the sarcastic stabs (usually directed at Republicans) that Obama uses to play up to his audience. People showed a level of restrain because he's the President. That's fine. But let's not make this anything more than what it is.

You're wrong on two fronts. I have no clue where you came up with the Al Qaeda thing, as it has no bearing on any discussion. Also, Obama's definitely not a liar in any way. He's an idealist who doesn't have a firm grip on the reality of what this bill will do to the Health Care system as we know it.

[Flasch186]

again, you dont believe it OR believe it is a conspiracy so what is the point of debating with you. Even though I watched it live I must've missed the guns pointed at the people who are 'really' opposed to Obama's plan.

Oh Im sorry you thought Obama was going to win the election and be as tough on foreign terror groups as his opponent. Your prediction(s), poll analysis, and thoughts were spot on in that whole thread.

You were wrong about what TARP accomplished or has led to (thus far), wrong on inflation thus far, and could be wrong on this {shrug}.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anyone who thought there would be any real form of opposing questions in that forum was fooling themselves. Those gatherings are much more controlled. The Secret Service is there. The microphone is taken away after the initial question, not allowing for any follow up questions to the sarcastic stabs (usually directed at Republicans) that Obama uses to play up to his audience. People showed a level of restrain because he's the President. That's fine. But let's not make this anything more than what it is.

You're wrong on two fronts. I have no clue where you came up with the Al Qaeda thing, as it has no bearing on any discussion. Also, Obama's definitely not a liar in any way. He's an idealist who doesn't have a firm grip on the reality of what this bill will do to the Health Care system as we know it.

newflash: the "Health Care system as we know it" is fucking broken

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Also, Obama's definitely not a liar in any way. He's an idealist who doesn't have a firm grip on the reality of what this bill will do to the Health Care system as we know it.

Well said MBBF...couldnt agree more with this statement.

Also, I keep hearing the "details" of the bill thrown about...is this available somewhere yet? I mean that seriously as I've been moving and crap like that the past week so I may have missed some things.

If it isn't available to the public...then how can anybody's strawman be any more ridiculous than anybody else's? I don't mean the 70 yr old grandma w/ cancer being thrown in the street to die stuff...but the denial of her ankle surgery due to having cancer (and shorter life expectancy) certainly doesnt sound ridiculous to me. Not when I consider that any bill (if) adopted today will likely not specify situations to this level. So...in 2-3 years when (if) the UHC bill proves to be unaffordable...why on earth would anybody believe it to be out of the question?

Or what about my own ankle surgery(which I have put off for 10 years now)? As a smoker, I am potentially a larger burden on the rest of the taxpayers...so do I get cut off from having that ankle surgery in 5-10 years because I may cost more in the meantime due to my smoking habit? If not...is that fair to anybody else? Or maybe I can just check the box that says "no, I'm not a smoker" and then lower my premiums (or tax liability?) so that I'm paying the same as every other non-smoker. Then will you expect the government to let me die in the street when I need treatment for cancer as well? What's fair here?

I know I know...I can keep my current plan. That is...until the government plan puts my insurance company out of business...or I change jobs...etc.

I have no inherent loyalty to the way things are done today...I just have yet to hear a well-articulated argument that just reaks of common sense. And I still have a really suspicious feeling that (a) this is a continuation of our government's desire to have illegal immigrants (or a below-poverty class if you will) in the country with the intent of attracting more so we can continue to enjoy the benefits of cheaper than minimum wage labor.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

newflash: the "Health Care system as we know it" is fucking broken

I agree that there are issues. But change for the sake of change is not a wise thing to do.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

newflash: the "Health Care system as we know it" is fucking broken

Couldn't we try simpler and less costly approaches to fixing it though?

Alternative Solution 1: (Dream scenario) Promote healthy living programs for a fraction of the cost we are about to spend. Yes there are healthy people getting sick but I think it is the 300-400 pound and out of shape people that are taking up a disproportionate amount of the system's resources.

Alternative Solution 2: Make the new government system cost more for 400 pound people, drug addicts, smokers, mountain climbers, etc. This is a free country sure but if my tax dollars are being spent I want some accountability.

Alternative Solution 3: I have mentioned this earlier in this thread. Go to a nationwide health savings account system. My work has this and amazingly people don't go to the doctor for bumps and bruises and sniffles when it is "their money" being spent. And while a doctor may tell someone else to have an MRI, people at my work ask how much it is going to cost and if there are alternatives. Hence a form of free market capitalism actually taking place.

Of course all of these proposals would require people to actually contribute something instead of just getting something for free. What was it that Kennedy said about government?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Couldn't we try simpler and less costly approaches to fixing it though?

Alternative Solution 1: (Dream scenario) Promote healthy living programs for a fraction of the cost we are about to spend. Yes there are healthy people getting sick but I think it is the 300-400 pound and out of shape people that are taking up a disproportionate amount of the system's resources.

Alternative Solution 2: Make the new government system cost more for 400 pound people, drug addicts, smokers, mountain climbers, etc. This is a free country sure but if my tax dollars are being spent I want some accountability.

Alternative Solution 3: I have mentioned this earlier in this thread. Go to a nationwide health savings account system. My work has this and amazingly people don't go to the doctor for bumps and bruises and sniffles when it is "their money" being spent. And while a doctor may tell someone else to have an MRI, people at my work ask how much it is going to cost and if there are alternatives. Hence a form of free market capitalism actually taking place.

Of course all of these proposals would require people to actually contribute something instead of just getting something for free. What was it that Kennedy said about government?

#1: I agree

#2: So you want to discriminate against people who are genetically predisposed (through no fault of their own) to being overweight? Nice...real nice. Why not just drag all the fatties out into the street and shoot them? But why stop there? What about people who are genetically predisposed to heart disease? Or diabetes? Do you know how much of our healthcare costs go to pay for people with diabetes?

#3: I like this idea too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

#2: So you want to discriminate against people who are genetically predisposed (through no fault of their own) to being overweight? Nice...real nice. Why not just drag all the fatties out into the street and shoot them? But why stop there? What about people who are genetically predisposed to heart disease? Or diabetes? Do you know how much of our healthcare costs go to pay for people with diabetes?

Here's where you and I differ. You're an idealist much like Mr. Obama who believes that everyone should be equal when it comes to health care. I believe that we have little choice but to charge a higher rate. Charging the healthy people for the unhealthy peoples' issues makes even less sense than charging the unhealthy people for their risk factors.

I'd also note that people who are genetically disposed to being heavier aren't doomed to be heavy. They have to work harder at it to remain healthy, but they're not necessarily doomed to be overweight.

Your argument regarding heart conditions and diabetes doesn't hold water. We already charge those people higher rates for those conditions. It's not discrimination. It's a company taking on a higher risk factor, which requires that they take in a higher premium to offset that higher risk of costs down the line.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

#1: I agree

#2: So you want to discriminate against people who are genetically predisposed (through no fault of their own) to being overweight? Nice...real nice. Why not just drag all the fatties out into the street and shoot them? But why stop there? What about people who are genetically predisposed to heart disease? Or diabetes? Do you know how much of our healthcare costs go to pay for people with diabetes?

#3: I like this idea too.

I am not a doctor but I believe diabetes is predominantly caused by behavior. So is being overweight. You are right there are 100 lb people who get heart disease and people with healthy lifestyles who get diabetes but let's not pretend like this country doesn't have horrible problems with obesity and disease that most other civilized countries don't have. (Hence a large chunk of money spend curing people who cause their own problems.)

Don't even get me started on the food industry. I admit I like to eat fast food and hostess style snacks every once in a while but good god we have a huge problem as a country that Obama could address instead of making it seem like we don't know where our health problems are coming from.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Also, I keep hearing the "details" of the bill thrown about...is this available somewhere yet?

H.R.3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress