Did Obama really say this? [Archive]

SnakeBoy

08-11-2009, 02:25 PM

Does he have a Postal Service bill he's selling?

He said this during a sales pitch for why we need more government involvement in healthcare.

That was a pathetic sham of a "townhall". It was pretty funny how in his opening speech he said how medicare is messed up and going broke and then his first staged question was from a state rep saying how much he liked "government run medicare" and Obama then started talking about how great medicare was and used it as an example of why we should trust government to fix healthcare.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 02:28 PM

He said this during a sales pitch for why we need more government involvement in healthcare.Weren't board Republicans saying that the government drives all its competition out of business without fail?

That was a pathetic sham of a "townhall". It was pretty funny how in his opening speech he said how medicare is messed up and going broke and then his first staged question was from a state rep saying how much he liked "government run medicare" and Obama then started talking about how great medicare was and used it as an example of why we should trust government to fix healthcare.I don't see anyone protesting to repeal Medicare. Many of the blue-hair protesters said they are afraid their Medicare will be taken away or reduced by a new plan.

101A

08-11-2009, 02:32 PM

Weren't board Republicans saying that the government drives all its competition out of business without fail?

No. A public option will (eventually) drive heatlh insurance carriers out of business.

I don't see anyone protesting to repeal Medicare. Many of the blue-hair protesters said they are afraid their Medicare will be taken away or reduced by a new plan.

Can't stop govt. programs once they begin (depression era programs notwithstanding).

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 02:39 PM

No. A public option will (eventually) drive heatlh insurance carriers out of business.Says who?

Can't stop govt. programs once they begin (depression era programs notwithstanding).Sure you can.

balli

08-11-2009, 02:39 PM

101A

08-11-2009, 02:41 PM

Also, private companies ARE NOT allowed to compete with the USPS (anymore).

They did, and were kicking the post office's ass in the 1840's - until Congress passed laws making all that competition illegal.

First class mail is where the huge $$$$ are, and that is where competition is forbidden; UPS and Fed Ex et al. MUST charge at least $3 to deliver a first class letter; to charge less would be illegal. SO the postal service continually raises its rates on its monopoly slice of the pie (first class) to subsidize its competing services at the higher end (and is still getting its ass kicked).

So, no, that is NOT an example of company's "competing" with the govt. - it only looks that; the govt. did not, and does not, want any part of REAL competition with the private sector.

101A

08-11-2009, 02:42 PM

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 02:44 PM

First class mail is where the huge $$$$ areEh, that volume and the money is shrinking every day and a bug reason for the losses. The USPS inadvertently did them a favor by keeping them out of the first class business.

balli

08-11-2009, 02:45 PM

WTF are you talking about? I'm not the one who's been characterizing those end-of-life counseling sessions as Obama's personal attempt to destroy the least productive members of our society.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 02:47 PM

Ummm, the law requires EVERYONE past age 65 to see an end of life counselor.Wrong.

We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care....The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure.

http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/

You really have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, do you?

101A

08-11-2009, 02:50 PM

Eh, that volume and the money is shrinking every day and a bug reason for the losses. The USPS inadvertently did them a favor by keeping them out of the first class business.

See the govt. can't get anything right.

Warlord23

08-11-2009, 02:50 PM

No. A public option will (eventually) drive heatlh insurance carriers out of business.

How're you so sure? There are examples of countries which have public and private health insurance coexisting. Brazil and India come to mind. Brazil, in particular, has what I think the US should aim for. People who can afford it buy private insurance and get better quality care and shorter wait times. People who get left out of this because they can't afford it or won't be covered by private insurers have access to public healthcare.

What's more, Brazil has a fully electronic medical records system that allow doctors to access patient information over the web within 30 seconds.

James Gosling (founder of the Java programming language, using which the entire Brazilian system is written) admires the Brazilian healthcare system so much so that he thinks he'd love to live in Brazil.

I see no reason why a public presence in healthcare causes any harm to either the industry or the consumer. The only party that gets affected are the insurance firms which arbitrarily grant/decline coverage with their bottom-line in mind.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 02:54 PM

See the govt. can't get anything right.So you're saying the right thing would have been to stifle the proliferation of the internet.

Nice.

SnakeBoy

08-11-2009, 02:58 PM

So you're saying the right thing would have been to stifle the proliferation of the internet.

Nice.

Can you name some govt programs that deliver efficient and cost effective results?

101A

08-11-2009, 02:59 PM

So you're saying the right thing would have been to stifle the proliferation of the internet.

Nice.

Strawman much?

Warlord23

08-11-2009, 02:59 PM

It's no coincidence that between 2000 and 2007, the top 10 US health insurers saw a 428% growth in net profits. On the other hand, as consumers, we have had to pay more for less coverage over these years (87% increase over the last six years).

Another clue: the health care industry has seen around 400 mergers in the last decade or so. What we have here is an oligopoly (a near-monopoly controlled by a few players).

I understand the value of free enterprise in improving quality and lowering cost. The healthcare industry unfortunately does not exhibit any of these benefits, the reason being little or no competition. GM and Chrysler got their asses kicked by Toyota and Honda, and we all agree that they deserved what they are going through. This sort of thing will never happen the way healthcare is set up. I don't see any harm in the government trying to get them to shape up.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:00 PM

How're you so sure? There are examples of countries which have public and private health insurance coexisting. Brazil and India come to mind. Brazil, in particular, has what I think the US should aim for. People who can afford it buy private insurance and get better quality care and shorter wait times. People who get left out of this because they can't afford it or won't be covered by private insurers have access to public healthcare.

What's more, Brazil has a fully electronic medical records system that allow doctors to access patient information over the web within 30 seconds.

James Gosling (founder of the Java programming language, using which the entire Brazilian system is written) admires the Brazilian healthcare system so much so that he thinks he'd love to live in Brazil.

I see no reason why a public presence in healthcare causes any harm to either the industry or the consumer. The only party that gets affected are the insurance firms which arbitrarily grant/decline coverage with their bottom-line in mind.

There's a thread somewhere where I described how it would/will happen - besides/once healthcare is a "right" in THIS country; a two class system wouldn't be long for this earth, would it?

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 03:01 PM

The VA prescription drug program seems to do well for one example. It has some advantages over Medicare Part D with the ability to negotiate prices.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 03:02 PM

Strawman much?I agree you set up a nice strawman.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 03:03 PM

There's a thread somewhere where I described how it would/will happen - besides/once healthcare is a "right" in THIS country; a two class system wouldn't be long for this earth, would it?It's already a right for the most part, and it's already a two-class system.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 03:05 PM

Ultimately the government takes over the types of insurance that private companies won't touch or is too expensive to be practical. Normal heath care will get there soon enough.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:06 PM

It's no coincidence that between 2000 and 2007, the top 10 US health insurers saw a 428% growth in net profits. On the other hand, as consumers, we have had to pay more for less coverage over these years (87% increase over the last six years).

You're right, it isn't a coincidence; the baby boomers are getting older, and sicker, and taking lots of drugs. Harley Davidson also exploded with profits when they started having mid life crisis. Should the govt. build motor cycles?

Another clue: the health care industry has seen around 400 mergers in the last decade or so. What we have here is an oligopoly (a near-monopoly controlled by a few players).

I understand the value of free enterprise in improving quality and lowering cost. The healthcare industry unfortunately does not exhibit any of these benefits, the reason being little or no competition. GM and Chrysler got their asses kicked by Toyota and Honda, and we all agree that they deserved what they are going through. This sort of thing will never happen the way healthcare is set up. I don't see any harm in the government trying to get them to shape up.

A monopoly is a single player; the USPS, for example.

In Healthcare you have: Aetna, United Healthcare, The Blues, Humana, JP, and literally hundreds of companies like my own that manage self funded plans; ALL competing. Those are marketed by thousands of insurance agents around the country.

THAT"S on the payor side; on the provider side there are the private hospitals the university hospitals, the medical centers, the county hospitals, the catholic hospitals and the hospital systems all competing. Some doctors work for larger corporations, some form practices with other docs, while many go it alone.

There's competition throughout the industry - the government, in a fair fight wouldn't make them any more honest than they already are; it would get smoked. The government, therefore, WILL change the rules.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 03:08 PM

A monopoly is a single player; the USPS, for example.

In Healthcare you have: Aetna, United Healthcare, The Blues, Humana, JP, and literally hundreds of companies like my own that manage self funded plans; ALL competing. Those are marketed by thousands of insurance agents around the country.

THAT"S on the payor side; on the provider side there are the private hospitals the university hospitals, the medical centers, the county hospitals, the catholic hospitals and the hospital systems all competing. Some doctors work for larger corporations, some form practices with other docs, while many go it alone.

There's competition throughout the industry - the government, in a fair fight wouldn't make them any more honest than they already are; it would get smoked. The government, therefore, WILL change the rules.So all that great competition has lowered prices for everyone and will continue to do so!

The system works!

Warlord23

08-11-2009, 03:10 PM

Actually the healthcare industry might well go the same way the auto makers went. I think uninsured people are going to increasingly consider traveling outside the US to countries where medical procedures are done at a tenth of the cost and with the same skill.

Medical tourism (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html)

The current system is broken. Leaving it as it is will be no different from letting GM remain uncompetitive and eventually decay.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:10 PM

Ultimately the government takes over the types of insurance that private companies won't touch or is too expensive to be practical. Normal heath care will get there soon enough.

Now THAT'S good idea.

The government becoming a final stop loss carrier for everyone (maybe at the $250,000 - $500,000 in lifetime claims level) would make some sense; in fact I brought it up a week ago; it could even work; but nobody is talking about such a system.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 03:11 PM

Now THAT'S good idea.

The government becoming a final stop loss carrier for everyone (maybe at the $250,000 - $500,000 in lifetime claims level) would make some sense; in fact I brought it up a week ago; it could even work; but nobody is talking about such a system.I think that will probably be the kind of mandate that will be proposed after the government option dies.

There also should to be something done for folks who want to buy but can't get any kind of insurance.

Warlord23

08-11-2009, 03:15 PM

In Healthcare you have: Aetna, United Healthcare, The Blues, Humana, JP, and literally hundreds of companies like my own that manage self funded plans; ALL competing. Those are marketed by thousands of insurance agents around the country.

THAT"S on the payor side; on the provider side there are the private hospitals the university hospitals, the medical centers, the county hospitals, the catholic hospitals and the hospital systems all competing. Some doctors work for larger corporations, some form practices with other docs, while many go it alone.

There's competition throughout the industry - the government, in a fair fight wouldn't make them any more honest than they already are; it would get smoked. The government, therefore, WILL change the rules.

If there is any competition, how do you explain the fact that this is the only industry that has seen higher prices and lesser value for the consumer (lesser coverage) while ballooning its profits unabated? That is the exact opposite of what competition has done in other industries.

The "competition" is an illusion. These firms are happy making supernormal profits in a broken system. Unlike a normal market, they have no incentive to do any better, because a normal market wouldn't allow an arbitrary pricing/service policy (the coverage/premium policy). They know they can be profitable with little risk in a system where they make the rules and the consumer is simply a helpless bystander.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:18 PM

So all that great competition has lowered prices for everyone and will continue to do so!

The system works!

No it hasn't obviously.

What Obama gets, and what many people don't, is that you CANNOT make healthcare affordable when a person is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars the last few weeks/months of life - and the more people there are getting sick and dying the more it is going to cost all of us; no matter how the payments get distributed.

Why was it so cheap in the 70's? Lots of baby boomers paying premium for relatively few old people dying younger than they do today.

Now the bubble is at the old-sick level; lots of sick people relative to the number of young, healthy ones. Add to that new, amazing EXPENSIVE treatments that show a glimmer of hope - but need to be perfected (they do that on dying people), and you get the exponential costs which we are experiencing.

Short of price controls (but that will stunt advancements), or euthanasia, there is almost nothing to do to control costs.

Believe me, I pay claims ALL day long, every day. What is different now is NOT the cost to pay the claims (we are more efficient, as are the insurance companies - it is harder to compete now than then) - nor is the cost of simple hospital stays appreciably higher; what is higher is the frequency and expense of truly bad crap: Cancer; Kidney disease; Heart Disease, etc.....what used to kill people doesn't anymore; we can save their lives, then send them back out, taking a maintenace drug for a few years, until they get something wose, that costs even more, that finally kills them.

People see the costs as a MAJOR crisis; I see the cost as something this country has decided to invest in; remarkable medical care and advances (most come from HERE, after all); ALSO - healthcare provides as many jobs in this country as it costs. 17% of GDP, BUT 17% of the jobs. It is efficient, and cannot be outsourced.

The problem is we have people who are uninsured; we should be focussed solely on that, and not on assuming the system is broken.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:22 PM

If there is any competition, how do you explain the fact that this is the only industry that has seen higher prices and lesser value for the consumer (lesser coverage) while ballooning its profits unabated? That is the exact opposite of what competition has done in other industries.

The "competition" is an illusion. These firms are happy making supernormal profits in a broken system. Unlike a normal market, they have no incentive to do any better, because a normal market wouldn't allow an arbitrary pricing/service policy (the coverage/premium policy). They know they can be profitable with little risk in a system where they make the rules and the consumer is simply a helpless bystander.

Do you have the numbers for the health insurance carriers profit as relates solely to their health insurance business?

I send every group I cover (20,000 employees total in Central S. Texas), out to all the carriers, plus some different markets you probably aren't familiar with. Trust me; they compete; if one sets premiums too high, the others undercut them, and they go back and forth till the lowest dollar is found. Carriers can't charge whatever they want; they lose the business to another carrier. Happens ALL the time.

Show me the profit numbers, as a percentage of revenue. What is your source?

101A

08-11-2009, 03:23 PM

I think that will probably be the kind of mandate that will be proposed after the government option dies.

I hope you're right.

There also should to be something done for folks who want to buy but can't get any kind of insurance.

This

Warlord23

08-11-2009, 03:36 PM

Do you have the numbers for the health insurance carriers profit as relates solely to their health insurance business?

I send every group I cover (20,000 employees total in Central S. Texas), out to all the carriers, plus some different markets you probably aren't familiar with. Trust me; they compete; if one sets premiums too high, the others undercut them, and they go back and forth till the lowest dollar is found. Carriers can't charge whatever they want; they lose the business to another carrier. Happens ALL the time.

Show me the profit numbers, as a percentage of revenue. What is your source?

I don't have the splits or percentage numbers with me. The figures I quoted are from this study by HCFAN (a coalition of not-for-profit organizations):

HCFAN study (http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf)

I can see how the baby boomer effect can make a difference. However, I find it difficult to understand how this has resulted in premiums going up for the insured, while the insurer's profits are unaffected (indeed, they seem to have been positively affected!).

In the face of a market-wide phenomenon, one would expect both producer and consumer to feel the ill effects. In this case, it seems the consumer is the only one negatively affected.

jack sommerset

08-11-2009, 03:36 PM

Asked today whether private insurers would be able to compete with the government plan, Obama responded:

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

:wow

Not exactly helping his own cause.

I want to laugh but I can't.

Jacob1983

08-11-2009, 03:38 PM

This is something that Bush would say. Oops, he didn't. Obama is making Bush look like a good president every day that he is in office.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:38 PM

FWIW:

Current profit margin for United Healthcare (the biggest payor): 3.2%

CEO compensation: $3.2 Million (A lot of money, but a quarter of what Richard Jefferson is going to make this year, and next to the 80 plus billion in revenue the company generated? A drop in the bucket - and certainly NOTHING lke the Wal Street bankers have been taking in)

101A

08-11-2009, 03:42 PM

I don't have the splits or percentage numbers with me. The figures I quoted are from this study by HCFAN (a coalition of not-for-profit organizations):

HCFAN study (http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf)

I can see how the baby boomer effect can make a difference. However, I find it difficult to understand how this has resulted in premiums going up for the insured, while the insurer's profits are unaffected (indeed, they seem to have been positively affected!).

In the face of a market-wide phenomenon, one would expect both producer and consumer to feel the ill effects. In this case, it seems the consumer is the only one negatively affected.

An insurance company makes profit based on its ability to interpret and underwrite risk - they are getting better and better at it - and they try to stick to a specific profit margin, not a certain AMOUNT of profit; as revenue goes up - so do profits in real dollars, even if the margin stays the same. If the insurer gets the number very wrong; seeing the amount of dollars in claims at risk; it could cause massive meltdown; in fact the Departments of Insurance of the various states keep a close eye on underwriting criteria, to make damn sure the carriers are getting it right; the TDI in particular wants to make sure the carriers are taking profits from other states and using those to undercut competition HERE to increase over all participation in their plans - essentially built in monopoly control.

101A

08-11-2009, 03:47 PM

I don't have the splits or percentage numbers with me. The figures I quoted are from this study by HCFAN (a coalition of not-for-profit organizations):

HCFAN study (http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf)

I can see how the baby boomer effect can make a difference. However, I find it difficult to understand how this has resulted in premiums going up for the insured, while the insurer's profits are unaffected (indeed, they seem to have been positively affected!).

In the face of a market-wide phenomenon, one would expect both producer and consumer to feel the ill effects. In this case, it seems the consumer is the only one negatively affected.

I looked at the study you cited; it does make a relevant point; there are areas of the country where a single payor has carved out a monopoly; I live in one here in Pennsylvania (I own a business in Texas - it's a long story), anyway; BC/BS OWNS this part of the country; nearly 90% of the people who have insurance are on it; However, other carriers have recognized this, are in talking to the doctors, and are getting networks set up to compete; BCBS sees it happening, and is getting more aggressive with its pricing - it is self correcting here; however,I CAN see where there are areas so remote, no one is interested in venturing into them, and those people could be at the mercy of a single payor (or seemingly so); the rules allowing people to buy insurance accross state lines could do a lot to end this issue; especially with the web to "shop" in real time.

Gino

08-11-2009, 03:49 PM

Really, I have a hard time believing that a public option run by death squad bureaucrats is going to put private insurance out of business.

But I could be wrong, maybe the free-market should fear everyone flocking to the plan that goes out of it's way to euthanize retarded babies and retirees.

The government can drive private insurance out of business if they are allowed to cheat as they do with medicaid. Currently, doctors are not properly paid by medicaid and therefore make up the difference by charging more to private insurance. If the number of people on medicaid is increased by the number theyre talking about, it could force doctors to force those rates even higher. Many people are worried that this could spiral out of control and leave the medicaid option as the only affordable option left.

Thats why the US mail analogy doesnt fit in this context. US mail is a service that you dont have to use. I, personally, havent mailed anything in YEARS.

However, you dont really have a choice when it comes to healthcare. If you get sick you pretty much have to see a doctor.

Gino

08-11-2009, 03:52 PM

I think that will probably be the kind of mandate that will be proposed after the government option dies.

There also should to be something done for folks who want to buy but can't get any kind of insurance.

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 03:53 PM

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".
Next, people won't want to buy auto insurance to pay for an accident, until they are in an at fault accident!

DarrinS

08-11-2009, 03:55 PM

Next, people won't want to buy auto insurance to pay for an accident, until they are in an at fault accident!

You beat me to it.

Buying insurance after some catastrophic event kinda goes against what insurance is for.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 04:00 PM

You beat me to it.

Buying insurance after some catastrophic event kinda goes against what insurance is for.
LOL...

Another fact that libtards fail to understand.

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 04:02 PM

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".In the preceding sentence, I stated that there would be mandates for people to buy some minimal kind of coverage.

Like auto insurance.

http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif

DarrinS

08-11-2009, 04:26 PM

Outside the event: angry, racist mob. Inside the event, a tough crowd, including a 13 yr old girl that asked why there were so many "mean signs".

5XTi-WdOu2s

Gino

08-11-2009, 04:28 PM

In the preceding sentence, I stated that there would be mandates for people to buy some minimal kind of coverage.

Like auto insurance.

http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif

Whats "minimal"? What if the minimal plan doesnt cover something that I get?

Isnt that the same thing? Shouldn't I just get the cheapest plan possible and then switch up if I get sick?

ChumpDumper

08-11-2009, 04:31 PM

Whats "minimal"? What if the minimal plan doesnt cover something that I get?My understanding is it would be catastrophic coverage -- I couldn't tell you what is or isn't covered.

Isnt that the same thing? Shouldn't I just get the cheapest plan possible and then switch up if I get sick?So you would be paying into a plan, then you would be paying more for a higher coverage plan.

Sounds better than paying nothing initially, then paying nothing after you are sick.

Extra Stout

08-11-2009, 04:31 PM

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".
What you describe is what has happened in Massachusetts.

One way to get around the moral hazard is to exclude claims on pre-existing conditions for some set period, for example six months.

LnGrrrR

08-11-2009, 04:40 PM

ElNono

08-11-2009, 06:09 PM

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

Because you would be penalized for not having insurance. Meaning you would have to PAY for NOT HAVING insurance. Which is actually where your proposition basically ends.
At any rate, this was part of one of the multiple bills circulating.

101A

08-11-2009, 06:27 PM

What you describe is what has happened in Massachusetts.

One way to get around the moral hazard is to exclude claims on pre-existing conditions for some set period, for example six months.

Right now pre existing exclusions are limited to 1 year on all group health plans (where most people get their coverage)

Several carriers in Texas already have NO exclusion for Pre X, including the Blues and Aetna.

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 06:27 PM

UPS and FedEx aren't in competition with the Postal Service. They're prohibited, by law, from delivery of First Class mail. But, they couldn't do it for 44 cents (or whatever it is now), because neither can the USPS. That's why they're in such sad shape.

But, UPS and FedEx are kicking ass in the competitive side of the market.

Way to make a good point Obama.

Rodriguez

08-11-2009, 07:23 PM

Because you would be penalized for not having insurance. Meaning you would have to PAY for NOT HAVING insurance. Which is actually where your proposition basically ends.
At any rate, this was part of one of the multiple bills circulating.
People would also have to get penalized for committing suicide as well, but I don't think that worries anyone committing suicide. The government penalize anyone whoever has his life risked by the no-insurance, just to show how carious they are with the health and lives of citizens. So when you get bitten by a dog you'd better go to some private clinics instead of public hospitals, otherwise the government run hospital would fine you hundreds of dollars for not taking enough care of yourself.

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 07:24 PM

And, in another affront to the intelligence of the general public, Obama said this, at today's townhall discussion of health care in Portsmouth, New Hampshire:

QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been quoted over the years when you were a senator, and perhaps even before then, that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan.

I'm beginning to see that you're changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I'm on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing, because who can compete with the government? The answer is nobody.

So my question is, do you still as a -- yourself now support a universal plan or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?

OBAMA: Well, I think it's an excellent question. So I appreciate the chance to respond. First of all, I want to make a distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things. A single-payer plan would be a plan like Medicare for all, or the kind of plan that they have in Canada, where basically government is the only person -- is the only entity that pays for all health care.

Everybody has a government paid-for plan, even though depending on which country, the doctors are still private or the hospitals might still be private. In some countries, the doctors work for the government and the hospitals are owned by the government.

But the point is, is that government pays for everything, like, Medicare for all. That is a single-payer plan. I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe, would be too disruptive.
Maybe he just misspoke. Or maybe he doesn't realize that just about everyone has seen this video:

fpAyan1fXCE
Or maybe he meant "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter lately."

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 07:30 PM

Because you would be penalized for not having insurance. Meaning you would have to PAY for NOT HAVING insurance. Which is actually where your proposition basically ends.
At any rate, this was part of one of the multiple bills circulating.
Please. What is the bill numbers of these "multiple bills" so I can look them up, or is this just more liberal propaganda?

ElNono

08-11-2009, 07:57 PM

Please. What is the bill numbers of these "multiple bills" so I can look them up, or is this just more liberal propaganda?

In the House Democrats’ proposal—America’s Affordable Health Choices Act—those individuals who do not have employer-based medical insurance, and who choose not to purchase coverage, would pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income, if they cannot demonstrate “hardship.” This component of the legislation comes under the subheading “Shared Responsibility.” The Senate health committee fine would be $750 per individual.

From here: LINK (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/heal-j17.shtml)

(If the World Socialist Web Site is blocked on your browser, I'll be happy to provide another source)

ElNono

08-11-2009, 07:58 PM

Here's another link from FreeRepublic, probably more to your taste: LINK (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2293134/posts)

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 08:37 PM

In the House Democrats’ proposal—America’s Affordable Health Choices Act—those individuals who do not have employer-based medical insurance, and who choose not to purchase coverage, would pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income, if they cannot demonstrate “hardship.” This component of the legislation comes under the subheading “Shared Responsibility.” The Senate health committee fine would be $750 per individual.

From here: LINK (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/heal-j17.shtml)

(If the World Socialist Web Site is blocked on your browser, I'll be happy to provide another source)You are a lemming liberal tool!

That is HB 3200, the only one I know of! The one we have been talking about. That is not a different one.

Please direct you attention to some facts:

H.R.3200
Title: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdrFdh:@@@X|/bss/111search.html|), opening of actions:

ALL ACTIONS:

7/14/2009:
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
7/14/2009:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce

Please, where are the other "multiple bills?"

Answer... There are none!

George Gervin's Afro

08-11-2009, 08:43 PM

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 08:43 PM

Here's another link from FreeRepublic, probably more to your taste: LINK (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2293134/posts)
Again, same bill, HB 3200. Section 401 (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111ErlCti:e205848:), part of text:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.Please, show me one of these other "multiple bills?"

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 08:44 PM

you're still denying there's only one bill?Huh?

I'm saying I haven't seen another one that isn't dead.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 08:48 PM

you're still denying there's only one bill?If I recall, you posted a few hundred congressional actions that were not another health care bill, and you want credibility?

Bill number please.

George Gervin's Afro

08-11-2009, 08:48 PM

Huh?

I'm saying I haven't seen another one that isn't dead.

What about Obama's bill?

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 08:50 PM

What about Obama's bill?
Show it to me in writing. It's all in his head until it gets a bill number.

Bill number please. Talk is cheap.

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 08:50 PM

What about Obama's bill?
Does he have one? I mean, he claims to have a plan..but, he's yet to say if it's embodied in the pending legislation. He's kind of evasive on that point.

George Gervin's Afro

08-11-2009, 08:51 PM

Show it to me in writing. It's all in his head until it gets a bill number.

Bill number please. Talk is cheap.

So if he doesn't have a bill then why are you implying he's lying?

George Gervin's Afro

08-11-2009, 08:52 PM

Does he have one? I mean, he claims to have a plan..but, he's yet to say if it's embodied in the pending legislation. He's kind of evasive on that point.

So if ther are no details , as you eloquently point out, then why are you sweating something that doesn't exist?

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 08:53 PM

So if he doesn't have a bill then why are you implying he's lying?OK, we can call him delusional instead. Is that better?

I'm still waiting to see one of these other "multiple bills" you liberal lemmings believe in.

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 08:58 PM

So if ther are no details , as you eloquently point out, then why are you sweating something that doesn't exist?
What is he defending? And, there is a bill. It's just that it contains a whole lot of language Obama either doesn't understand or he's hoping we don't understand.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 09:01 PM

So if ther are no details , as you eloquently point out, then why are you sweating something that doesn't exist?HB 3200 is the bill President Omaba is endorsing. There are no details in the fact most the provisions leave that for future development.

Still. HB 3200 is the only one out there.

Again, for the Nth time...

Where are these multiple bills? HB number please.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 09:25 PM

George, ElNono...

You guys must be Googling hard! Find anything to use yet?

ElNono

08-11-2009, 09:30 PM

George, ElNono...

You guys must be Googling hard! Find anything to use yet?

Not really. My understanding is that there was another bipartisan bill being worked on by the Senate Finance Committee (article about it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503996.html)). I don't know where they're at with it, but with the recess probably not working on it right now.

My point still stands. You will be penalized for not having insurance.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 09:33 PM

Not really. My understanding is that there was another bipartisan bill being worked on by the Senate Finance Committee (article about it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503996.html)). I don't know where they're at with it, but with the recess probably not working on it right now.

My point still stands. You will be penalized for not having insurance.When they do such things, it's just the senate version of the same bill. If the senate passes it, there is then a conference between the house and senate to compromise, then the compromise gets voted on.

Again, it's the same bill.

Where are the other "multiple bills."

ElNono

08-11-2009, 09:35 PM

You are a lemming liberal tool!

That is HB 3200, the only one I know of! The one we have been talking about. That is not a different one.

Please direct you attention to some facts:

H.R.3200
Title: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdrFdh:@@@X|/bss/111search.html|), opening of actions:

Please, where are the other "multiple bills?"

Answer... There are none!

So you're not arguing that an uninsured person would be penalized. You're arguing there's no more than one bill?
Don't be disingenuous.
What we're discussing here is why would anybody pay for insurance while they're healthy if they can always join without limitations (pre existing conditions, etc) later on.
While you were shaking the party pompoms and subscribing to the idea, you merely forgot that people that opt not to be insured get penalized, specifically for that reason.

So thanks for making my point for me...

ElNono

08-11-2009, 09:37 PM

When they do such things, it's just the senate version of the same bill. If the senate passes it, there is then a conference between the house and senate to compromise, then the compromise gets voted on.

Again, it's the same bill.

Where are the other "multiple bills."

My understanding is that this Senate bill being worked on did not include a public option.
Obviously, a fairly substantial change from the House bill you quoted earlier.
In a nutshell, the bill you like to quote is not final either.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 09:43 PM

So you're not arguing that an uninsured person would be penalized. You're arguing there's no more than one bill?
Don't be disingenuous.
What we're discussing here is why would anybody pay for insurance while they're healthy if they can always join without limitations (pre existing conditions, etc) later on.
While you were shaking the party pompoms and subscribing to the idea, you merely forgot that people that opt not to be insured get penalized, specifically for that reason.

So thanks for making my point for me...
LOL

Now that you see I'm right, rather than admit it, you change back to a topic that I stated my beliefs on. Thing is, if I opt not to buy insurance, why should I pay if I am paying in cash when I go to the doctor or emergency room?

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 09:47 PM

My understanding is that this Senate bill being worked on did not include a public option.
Obviously, a fairly substantial change from the House bill you quoted earlier.
In a nutshell, the bill you like to quote is not final either.Of course it's not final. It's not final until, all the amendment are passed and the senate and house both vote on the same package. Then of course, it need the president to sign it afterwords.

Without complaining about the bad provisions, they will never get corrected. Still, that's not what I want to see happen because I believe no matter what previsions are changed, this is a poison pill for our nation.

101A

08-11-2009, 09:48 PM

My understanding is that this Senate bill being worked on did not include a public option.
Obviously, a fairly substantial change from the House bill you quoted earlier.
In a nutshell, the bill you like to quote is not final either.

Actually, the HELP (Mssrs Kennedy & Dodd) bill is very similar to HB3200; the Baucus bill, which doesn't exist as of yet, does not include a public option.

ElNono

08-11-2009, 09:50 PM

Actually, the HELP (Mssrs Kennedy & Dodd) bill is very similar to HB3200; the Baucus bill, which doesn't exist as of yet, does not include a public option.

Thanks. That was my understanding. I don't really care how many bills there are, I just heard more than one were being worked on. But it's besides the point. I was merely explaining the flawed assumption that there would be no consequences to opting to have no insurance.

ElNono

08-11-2009, 10:01 PM

The original proposition:

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

Your intellectually dishonest response:

Next, people won't want to buy auto insurance to pay for an accident, until they are in an at fault accident!

The explanation why the proposition is a fallacy:

Because you would be penalized for not having insurance. Meaning you would have to PAY for NOT HAVING insurance. Which is actually where your proposition basically ends.
At any rate, this was part of one of the multiple bills circulating.

Your response, which shows you were aware of the penalty, completely nullifying your previous response:

Again, same bill, HB 3200. Section 401, part of text:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

And finally, as it's almost always the case with you, you end up with some partisan rant:

LOL

Now that you see I'm right, rather than admit it, you change back to a topic that I stated my beliefs on. Thing is, if I opt not to buy insurance, why should I pay if I am paying in cash when I go to the doctor or emergency room?

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

I could play devil's advocate, and ask you if conservatards didn't steal money from your in the bailout, just to show that stealing money from you and me is not merely a liberal construction. But what's the point? This is not what we were originally talking about here anyways.

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 10:02 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Picture-268.png (http://www.hulu.com/watch/86378/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-healthraiser)

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 10:09 PM

Actually, the HELP (Mssrs Kennedy & Dodd) bill is very similar to HB3200; the Baucus bill, which doesn't exist as of yet, does not include a public option.Well, HELP is not a bill. It stands for United States Senate Committee on "Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions" which Kennedy is the Chair, and Dodd is the acting chair. Again, it will be the senate version of the house bill that you are referring to.

There are two other bills, both dead. HR 676's last action was in January. HR 1321's last action was in March.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 10:15 PM

Your response, which shows you were aware of the penalty, completely nullifying your previous response:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, same bill, HB 3200. Section 401, part of text:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
<snip>LOL... My God, you spinmeister...

That was a response to show you what you answered as one of multiple bills was in fact part of HB 3200, not a different one.

And finally, as it's almost always the case with you, you end up with some partisan rant:Not a partisan rant. What if I cooose to pay my way as I go? That part of the bill violates my right to choose.

I could play devil's advocate, and ask you if conservatards didn't steal money from your in the bailout, just to show that stealing money from you and me is not merely a liberal construction. But what's the point? This is not what we were originally talking about here anyways.

No, you're just being stupid.

101A

08-11-2009, 10:16 PM

FWIW; here is the text of teh House bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

It's actually chilling to read (and of course I've only read small sections)...but it truly is huge; and I see rights (since I am so familiar with the industry) being usurped in nearly every sentence. "The Commsioner shall set", or "The Commisioner shall limit" - this Commisioner is going to be a seriously powerful individual - gonna have more juice than probably any cabinet member; simply because of the amount of the economy at his/her disposal; gonna be a big political cherry for the Pres to dole out......also limits rating of carriers so much that now I understand they simply won't stay in the business; they won't be able to. They can ONLY change rates based on Age. That's it. Meaning some fat tub of goo been sucking slurpies and watching Oprah for 10 years pays the same as the cyclist who limits his red meat & carbs. Sucks for the cyclist (another right taken away) - and sucks for the insurance company, which HAS to get enough to cover the cow, and won't have a $$$$ printing press. Under that rule book, there simply won't be competition.

To put it in UPS/Fed Ex terms; they would be required to charge everybody the same thing, no matter what they are shipping, or where they are shipping it to. 20 X 20 box of lead? Same as a letter; people will be sending LOTS of big ass boxes, won't they? Only the government can operate with such insane guidelines (they don't have to make a profit, remember?)

We are told the problem is the uninsured - but this is 1,000 pages of government usurption of an industry; not simply finding coverage for those people who don't have it. There are far easier, and less expensive ways of doing that. The Libs aren't interested; they aren't going to waste this opportunity; they want the health sector; and dammit, they're gonnna get it!

Oh, and that bill effectively ends my (built for 24 years now) business model

Can make one pretty bitter.

ElNono

08-11-2009, 10:35 PM

LOL... My God, you spinmeister...

That was a response to show you what you answered as one of multiple bills was in fact part of HB 3200, not a different one.

Yep. And it clearly shows your original response was simply entirely disingenuous.

Not a partisan rant.

Partisan rant response:

Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me?

Non-partisan rant response:

What if I cooose to pay my way as I go? That part of the bill violates my right to choose.

See, you are more than capable of doing it. it really escapes me why you almost always take the partisan route.

No, you're just being stupid.

Am I? My memory might be a little foggy, but I seem to recall pretty clearly that you were opposed to the Paulson-engineered bailout, rushed by President Bush, and voted by both conservatards and libtards in Congress.

Are you changing your tune now? Do you now support the bailout?

ElNono

08-11-2009, 10:38 PM

Oh, and that bill effectively ends my (built for 24 years now) business model

Can make one pretty bitter.

You know we don't agree on a bunch of things, but I sincerely hope you find a new niche in the new system if it ever passes. Might not be much consolation, but you have a great head start in that you seem to be a bright fella.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 10:38 PM

Am I? My memory might be a little foggy, but I seem to recall pretty clearly that you were opposed to the Paulson-engineered bailout, rushed by President Bush, and voted by both conservatards and libtards in Congress.

Are you changing your tune now? Do you now support the bailout?
LOL. No support of the bailout.

Can you name me a conservative that voted for it? Since when does republican = conservative?

ElNono

08-11-2009, 10:39 PM

LOL. No support of the bailout.

Can you name me a conservative that voted for it? Since when does republican = conservative?

McCain is not a conservative?
Bush is not a conservative?

Might not be 'fiscally conservative', but that's a different story altogether.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 10:41 PM

McCain is not a conservative?
Bush is not a conservative?

Might not be 'fiscally conservative', but that's a different story altogether.You don't remember me calling them RINO's? What about how many times I specifically said I didn't like president Bush's ideas of Amnesty and his spending?

ElNono

08-11-2009, 10:45 PM

You don't remember me calling them RINO's?

You certainly didn't call them liberals, IIRC.

Point being, I'm not the one being stupid. It's you being the partisan hack.
Maybe you should start changing your tune to something like:

It's all the liberals and RINO's fault!!!

ElNono

08-11-2009, 10:51 PM

This is a pretty incredible turn of events... just when you thought Bush was going to Mt Rushmore, turns out he's a republican in name only and not even a conservative...

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 10:56 PM

You certainly didn't call them liberals, IIRC.

Point being, I'm not the one being stupid. It's you being the partisan hack.
Maybe you should start changing your tune to something like:

It's all the liberals and RINO's fault!!!Well, RINO's aren't as bad as libtards, and I don't can the democrat politicians libtards. I call them demonrats. It's the lemming followers of liberal dogma I call libtards.

Look at you. You believed there was more than one health care bill. You provide two links to show me I was wrong, when in fact they were both parts of HB 3200.

You believe liberal propaganda. Plain and simple. For that, I will call you a lemming and/or a libtard. If you verified the facts, and still believed in the ideals, that would be a different story.

Fins any "multiple bills" yet?

Let me address this:
Partisan rant response:
Why are liberals brainwashed into thinking insurance is necessary?

Why do liberals want to steal money from me? If you call may anger partisan, what an I partisan about? Not the republican platform. I am a concerned angry citizen. I am witnessing this great nation go into a meltdown. I have no power to stop it, and it pisses me off when liberals are so blind, and become unwitting accomplices to our destruction.

Wild Cobra

08-11-2009, 10:57 PM

This is a pretty incredible turn of events... just when you thought Bush was going to Mt Rushmore, turns out he's a republican in name only and not even a conservative...
Where did you ever get the idea I felt like that? can you show me a thread/post?

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 11:02 PM

It was me that put Bush on Mt. Rushmore.

http://www.redstategraffix.com/Bush_Rushmore.gif

Was he perfect? No. But, neither were any of the other 4 up there on that rock.

Yonivore

08-11-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote of the Day:

“A question you keep hearing is, ‘Have you read the bill?’ There’s nothing that confuses more than reading a bill written by lawyers for lawyers and for bureaucrats.”
--Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Aug. 11, 2009.

LnGrrrR

08-11-2009, 11:21 PM

You don't remember me calling them RINO's? What about how many times I specifically said I didn't like president Bush's ideas of Amnesty and his spending?

I don't think you can just call conservatives whoever you think are conservatives. If people self-identify as conservatives, then you can't really 'disown' them, I feel. A decent number of Republicans voted for it.

ElNono

08-11-2009, 11:23 PM

Well, RINO's aren't as bad as libtards, and I don't can the democrat politicians libtards. I call them demonrats. It's the lemming followers of liberal dogma I call libtards.

Conservatives stole your money. Hand in hand with libtards/demonrats. FACT.

Look at you. You believed there was more than one health care bill. You provide two links to show me I was wrong, when in fact they were both parts of HB 3200.

They're not part of HB3200. Please quote the part of HB3200, since you have a copy handy, that states there will be no public option.

You believe liberal propaganda. Plain and simple. For that, I will call you a lemming and/or a libtard. If you verified the facts, and still believed in the ideals, that would be a different story

What facts did I need to verify? That HB3200 is not a final bill and that there are other options being considered?
It's funny that you think I buy any propaganda, liberal or otherwise. Up until you brought the partisan hackery, I didn't even mention any kind of party/ideology. I'm more a centrist myself, which probably doesn't jive with you either, but who gives a fuck?

Find any "multiple bills" yet?

We've yet to finalize a bill for that matter. Would you call that bill you've been reading the same bill with no public option and no forced employee insurance coverage?

Let me address this:If you call may anger partisan, what an I partisan about? Not the republican platform. I am a concerned angry citizen. I am witnessing this great nation go into a meltdown. I have no power to stop it, and it pisses me off when liberals are so blind, and become unwitting accomplices to our destruction.

I don't dispute your anger. Heck, I don't particularly like this bill in it's current form any more than you do. The difference is that you like to tag everything under the liberal mantra when the GOP has been just as happy to fuck you in the ass. And that is partisan hackery of the highest level.