Lying President Teleprompter will…

[Yonivore]

…do so again tonight.

Our liar-in-Chief will go before both houses of Congress tonight and give his 1,435,353rd speech on Health Care, er…Health Insurance, no…Health Care; wait, I think it’s Health Insurance again…reform. I don’t expect his speech will change the hearts and minds of anyone. For one thing, no one the president needs to reach will be watching. The ratings for every televised address the president has done on this issue have dropped with each subsequent appearance…as do his personal approval ratings every time he opens his mouth on the subject. I expect this televised appearance will follow that pattern.

And, if the White House lead-ins are accurate, we’ve heard this speech before; both from Obama and, also, from his subordinates…over and over, ad nauseum. The President, himself, has given over 110 speeches on Health Care (Insurance) Reform since taking office. And, if the speeches weren’t televised, they’ve been dutifully hyped by the media afterward.

Nonetheless, he’s going to go before your elected representatives tonight and – once again – make his case for enacting Health Care legislation. And, since the White House is saying he won’t be proposing new legislation or changing any of the major elements of his plan, we have a pretty good idea of the lies he’s going to spew forth doing it. While everyone, who bothers to watch, has already heard the lies, and the rebutted facts debunking them, let’s repeat them – here – as a prediction and to remind us just how dishonest a process this whole reform effort has been.

So, in no particular order, the top five untruths, misrepresentations, or outright lies you’ll hear tonight – if you watch.


(a) President Obama will say there are 42 to 47 (it changes) million uninsured Americans.

This falls into the category of lies repeated – and debunked – so often it’s just white noise that not many people even hear anymore. The actual number, when you weed out the wealthy that self-insure, the young who choose not to insure, the illegal aliens who shouldn’t be insured (at anyone’s expense but their own), the elderly who will be enrolled in Medicare when they become ill and need a doctor, and the poor who are either underreported by Medicaid or who – similar to the elderly – will be enrolled when they show up needing medical care, you end up with a number somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million.

And, in a country of 350 million people, I think we can come up with a health care system that accommodates the needs of these people without completely dismantling a health care system – and 17% of our economy along with it – with which 85-90% of the population is satisfied. This is why Obama has to falsely inflate the numbers.

But, the 42 (or 47) million number is a non-starter. The President might just as well get up there tonight and say we need to enact this legislation to insure the rich, healthy, and illegal aliens. In other words, ask Americans to pay for people to be insured who don’t need it, don’t won’t it, or shouldn’t get it at their expense.

(b) President Obama will say his plan is “deficit neutral.”

This is a bald-faced lie. None of the proposals yet submitted – including HR3200 – has been deficit neutral, (at least not in the first decade). Both the CBO and OMB have said as much with varying but undeniable numbers. And, even those proposals that claim they will be deficit neutral, beginning 10 years out, should be viewed in the context – and through the rightful skepticism – of our experience, as Americans, with every other massive government program ever developed; beginning with the two major health-related ones, Medicare and Medicaid.

The administration’s claims rely heavily on wild-assed guesses (known in the bidness as “assumptions”) about revenues and costs. Name one government program that has even come close to estimating projected figures on anything. And, if you do manage to come up with one – it won’t be Medicare or Medicaid. Hell, just look at Obama’s projections on how his stimulus plan would affect unemployment over the past 8 months – and the reality. They bear no resemblance to one another.

Right or wrong, you can’t predict the unexpected. Nobody knows how much money will be raised by his schemes to tax or streamline or reduce fraud. And, nobody knows how much will be spent either. What we do know is that you can’t think of a government entitlement program that has come in costing less than treble the amount estimated at the outset.

If any of his cost-saving schemes would work, we’d of already applied them to Medicare and Medicaid.

So he's going to say "deficit neutral" and we should point and laugh. It's not going to be deficit neutral. It's going to cost more than expected and the schemes he proposes to make it deficit neutral are going to generate less revenue or savings than expected. The only proposed plans that would be deficit neutral have been Republican plans or the suggestions of people like John Mackey.

But, if we’re all honest with one another, we know the point of the whole exercise is neither to provide universal health care nor save money doing it. It’s to advance a socialist objective, exert control over individual Americans, redistribute wealth, and to put Obama in the history books with some monumental legacy.

(c) President Obama will identify the “obstacles” to this progressive and necessary reform as one or more of the various demons he’s invoked since he started this crusade. Most certainly, Republicans will head that list; but, you’re just as likely to hear about the money-grubbing insurance companies or, even, the tonsil-stealing, foot-amputating doctors.

It doesn’t really matter, Obama needs a villain and he certainly can’t point to the vast majority of Americans that a) see no need for the reform or b) see a need for reform but don’t want it to be nationalized or socialized medicine.

Yes, I’m sure there’ll be references to the “mobsters” or, to use Reid’s term, “evil mongers” who have more vehemently opposed his plan at Tea Party and Town Hall meetings over the past month and more.

But, those are all red herrings.

The Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. If this were just unwarranted partisan rancor, President Obama would have already made the case to his party and they’d of rammed through some legislation by now…after all, they did it with the Stimulus Bill. But, he can’t do that because, he realizes he doesn’t even have the unanimous support of his own party…he doesn’t have the votes to pass this monstrosity.

Why? Because the Democrat legislators still listening to their constituents know how unpopular, dangerous, unwarranted, and unnecessary is this stupid plan. I think he’s in a hot box with his own party with many of them, standing on third base, saying they won’t vote for a plan without a “public option” (government option) and with just as many, at home plate, saying they won’t vote for one with it.

It’s entertaining to watch. Republicans have nothing to do with his inability to convince his own party. If he wanted to blame the true obstructionists, he should be pointing at the congressmen of his own party. But, the only problem with that is it would also be blaming their constituents – regular Americans…a bunch of ‘em. Probably more than the 10 million uninsured and possible approaching the 47 million Obama says are uninsured.

(d) President Obama will claim his opponents – and, Republicans in particular – don’t have an alternative plan; that they are satisfied with the status quo and want to do nothing.

Patently untrue.

While believing – and saying – that doing nothing would be better than doing what is being proposed in HR3200 or by President Obama, that’s not what his opponents are proposing. Saying so is dishonest or ignorant. It’s not a proposal to do nothing and keep the status quo; it’s an assertion that doing nothing, while not acceptable, is still better than what is being proposed.

Granted, the mainstream media hasn’t exactly given Republicans the opportunity, air time, or column inches, to make their case, that they have to the White House but, nonetheless, there are proposals out there. But, maybe, if Obama had met with Republicans, more recently than April, he would be more familiar with the alternatives they’re forwarding.

In fact, Republicans have issued a proposed framework and they have floated several specific reform proposals from tort reform to making individual policies tax deductible (like employer plans), to lifting government regulations prohibiting interstate portability of policies being the three that occur to me off the top of my head.

(e) President Obama will say the “public” option won’t be subsidized.

In reassuring tones, he’s going to promise the “public” option (or the compromise “co-ops”) isn’t a Trojan Horse for an eventual single-payer system. He’ll use terms like “competition” and “choice” to bolster his argument. And, it will be done in the context of demonizing the evil, profit-driven insurance companies or sadistic physicians that hack on your relatives, unnecessarily, for money.

It is the “competition” statement that requires the lie; although, I believe his plan will ultimately put the lie to the “choice” statement, as well, by driving Americans from commercial insurers to the “public” option using various means, including, undercutting on price, more onerous regulations (i.e. requiring commercial insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions or basic treatments not normally covered), and insurance mandates.

But, back to the first point because, it is the most immediate lie.

Everyone – even Barney Frank, who forgets to wipe up his chin drool – knows if the public option is subsidized, at all, it will not provide true competition for the private insurance market. It automatically gives an unfair advantage to the “public” option. So he will lie and say that it won't be subsidized.

There is simply no way the President or the Democrats will allow the public option to fail once it has been established. When it starts operating in the red – and it will, damn near immediately – the Democrats will call for subsidizing it saying, "Oh, we can't take people's insurance away now and we can't raise premiums for all these people!"

Already, four of the five bills passed out of committee have included mandates and subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. Many – not all – but, a vast majority, of the people who are mandated to be insured (I think the proposed fine, for being uninsured, is up to $3,800) and can’t afford it – therefore receiving the subsidies – will head straight to the “public” option.

That’s subsidizing out of the box. Why not just make them eligible for Medicare or Medicaid? It seems to me the laws for those programs would be easier to amend than creating this monstrosity out of whole cloth. But, that’s just me.

So, to sum up, the president is going to stay true to form tonight. He will lie his ass off.

Also remember this, it’s not just about the “public” option. The media have concentrated, almost exclusively, on the debate over the “public” option…and, in the process, have tried to make it appear this is the only objection opponents to the plan have. I think that’s intentional on their part.

Considering the shell game, of compromising with a “co-op” plan or dropping the “public” option altogether (and this would only happen if he were able to convince the rabid left it would be included by hook, or crook, somewhere down the road), in which he’s liable to engage tonight, this would be a perfect setup to then say, “look, we’ve dropped the ‘public’ option, any other opposition is unreasonable, right?”

Yeah, wrong. The “public” option is only one of a number of things wrong with his plan. Here are some others – all taken from various Obama proposals or from the several bills being batted around Congress.


a) Forcing insurers to accept all applicants.

If you force insurers to accept all applicants, no matter the risks, one of two things must happen. You raise premiums to cover the inevitable costs of insuring anyone who applies (and brings with them pre-existing conditions, risky behaviors, or deteriorating health) or, you limit what you cover in terms of care. I suspect there will be legislation prohibiting the companies from excluding certain medical treatments and therapies so, you’re left with raising premiums.

When that happens, the “public” option will be the safe harbor to which people will flee.

This proposal alone could put most insurers out of business.

This will lead to the second big problem (and, I alluded to it in one of the lies above).

b) Subsidizing premiums for those unable to afford private insurance.

From where is that money coming? Yep. Taxpayers. So, not only will forcing insurance companies to raise rates (or cut care [unlikely to be allowed]), it will impose a new burden on the roughly 50% of Americans paying income taxes.

Like most – probably all but, I can’t be sure – Democrat proposals, over the past eight months, this is a money pit; created at a time when we’re in the middle of Biden’s “Great Recession.” Not exactly an ideal time to impose a new dead-weight loss on the economy.

It’s never the right time to raise taxes but, even the dumbest Democrats (Obama apparently excepted) know doing so during an economic downturn is a horrible idea.

c) Individual Mandates.

ObamaCare, backed by the threat of fees/fines (more taxes) – latest proposal set at $3,800.00 – for people who remain uninsured, will require individuals to have health insurance. The government is going to force you to spend your money (or, they’ll spend mine if you can’t afford it) on this – even if you don’t want.

Sorry, but the auto insurance analogy doesn’t work. We require people to carry liability insurance so the harm they cause others, can be repaired. The law does not require vehicle owners to have comprehensive insurance protecting their own vehicles. Exposing yourself to loss is – and should remain – a personal decision.

Many people, particularly the wealthy (who can afford to self-insure) and the young (who choose to face the risk their out-of-pocket expenses will not exceed the amount they’d pay in premiums), d0 not want to purchase health insurance. Most people pay between $5,000 and $6,000 dollars a year for health insurance. The vast majority incur medical expenses amounting to only a fraction of that. To some, it is worth the risk to not insure…they should be allowed to accept that risk.

d) Employer Mandates.

During the debates, Senators McCain and Obama jousted over this. McCain said Obama would impose punitive mandates on employers. Obama, in a less than convincing manner, indicated he would not.

ObamaCare will require employers – including small businesses least able to a new fixed cost – to buy into insurance plans for their employees. Failure to participate will result in penalties…yet another tax. This will be an economic disaster for small business, already suffering through yet another hike in the minimum wage. And, just as with every time the minimum wage is raise, the choice for small business is simple; reduce your workforce (and, in this case, to a point below the threshold of ObamaCare) to avoid the additional expense.

More unemployment! Good job Mr. President.

Barring that – because some businesses must have a certain number of employees to remain profitable – they will have to pony up and either provide the insurance or pay the penalties. The cost of this can only come from a few places. Salaries, production of goods, provision of services, or profits.

Translated, ObamaCare results in lower pay, higher unemployment, fewer goods, degraded service, and reduced profits. Some employers may just decide to go out of business.

ObamaCare is anti-prosperity. It is going to hurt our economy in a deep and lasting way and not just because of the “public” option.

Health care in the US is covered by three main systems-- Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Two of these systems are bankrupt, and will be unable to make payments beyond 2017. The third is solvent, and can make all of its payments for the foreseeable future.

ObamaCare proposes to take the one system meeting its obligations and fold it into the two systems that are bankrupt.

Damn, I didn’t even get into the eventual “death panels” that will be required when the government suddenly realizes they can’t treat everyone…so, they’re going to have to ration care.

That’s where Dr. Zeke Emmanuel’s “Quality Adjusted Life” expectancy and John Holdren’s communist population control theories come into play. After all, they’ve got to cut costs somewhere…

Obama will say that’s fear-mongering.

Ask yourself this. What is Obama claiming will happen if his Health Care…er, Health Insurance…damnit, Health Care Reform plan isn’t passed?

It’ll be catastrophic, right? Well, that’s fear-mongering, too. Every political decision is driven by the fears of action or inaction…so, save the indignation.

[Winehole23]

Link?

[boutons_deux]

you're a fucking, fear-mongering, corporate-shill loser, pussyeater

[Yonivore]

Link?
To what? There's a lot of information in there... Google away, I stand behind it all.

[Yonivore]

you're a pussyeater
First thing you've ever gotten right.

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't write it all, however.

[Yonivore]

Chumpy, you must have an alarm that goes off every time I post. Sweet.

[ChumpDumper]

Link?

[Winehole23]

You should see someone about that lingering case of Tourette's, b_d. It's really a drag how you treat this forum like it was a bathroom stall.

[ChumpDumper]

So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.

[DarrinS]

You should see someone about that lingering case of Tourette's, b_d. It's really a drag how you treat this forum like it was a bathroom stall.

No kidding. He/she must be really pleasant to be around.

[DarrinS]

Tonight's drinking game:

1 drink every time God says "Let me be clear"

[Yonivore]

Tonight's drinking game:

1 drink every time God says "Let me be clear"
Or, "the time for debate is over."

[doobs]

Tonight's drinking game:

1 drink every time God says "Let me be clear"

"We reject as false the choice between . . ."

[BadMoodBob]

Tonight's drinking game:

1 drink every time God says "Let me be clear"

*Furrowed brow*...*chin up*...*pause*..."Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd"..."Let me be clear".

[BadMoodBob]

So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.

The public option is intended to eventually lead to a single payer system.

[ChumpDumper]

The public option is intended to eventually lead to a single payer system.So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.

[BadMoodBob]

So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.


The public option is intended to eventually lead to a single payer system.

How both you and I know this..
1) Obama said so.
2) The progressives will not support a bill without a public option.

[doobs]

So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.

Thoughtful people consider the actual results of proposed legislation. What do you think will be the likely result of the public option?

[BadMoodBob]

Thoughtful people consider the actual results of proposed legislation. What do you think will be the likely result of the public option?

Chump is trying to play this surface game as if it even entertains me or anyone else reading this thread.

Chump, c'mon brother :depressed

[Yonivore]

Chump is trying to play this surface game as if it even entertains me or anyone else reading this thread.

Chump, c'mon brother :depressed
Give up on Chump...he's like a Whack-a-Mole.

[BadMoodBob]

I think Chump is a cool enough guy, in his own way, to not really care one way or another because he knows he will succeed in any system. I get that.

At the same time, I wonder if it annoys him there are young people out there that know enough of the fundamentals to not fall into the trap of Instant 20-something Progressive Movement Take-Politicians'-Words-at-face-value faux intellectual Big-Government-Supporting They-really-care-about-us mold.

[Winehole23]

No kidding. He/she must be really pleasant to be around.I wasn't kidding about the bathroom stall thing.

Maybe this forum is like a closet where b_d can't vent his hostilities, so as not to inflict them on his (or her) loved ones. Maybe all the piss and vinegar makes b_d more pleasant to be around, for those who know him in meatspace. Kinda sucks for us tho.

[Yonivore]

I wasn't kidding about the bathroom stall thing.

Maybe this forum is like a closet where b_d can't vent his hostilities, so as not to inflict them on his (or her) loved ones. Maybe all the piss and vinegar makes b_d more pleasant to be around, for those who know him in meatspace. Kinda sucks for us tho.
You can use the ignore function...that way you only see his/her nonsense when someone quotes him/her.

[in2deep]

you sound scared shitless

[nuclearfm]

I get a kick out of things like this. I don't know why you guys are responding to the right-wing nutjob OP's. It's pure BS from the start.

[nuclearfm]

So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.

Guy, the proposal sucks, it does. It's not the president's bill however. Anytime you have that many ideologues writing something you're bound to have some bs get through. A lot of dems are falling back from it. Stop defending it. Obama is going to release his own bill soon, then the real game starts.

[Yonivore]

I get a kick out of things like this. I don't know why you guys are responding to the right-wing nutjob OP's. It's pure BS from the start.
Which points are BS?

[Winehole23]

Speech is at 7PM, CST.

[nuclearfm]

Which points are BS?

You said his proposal was deficit neutral. There is no Presidential proposal..yet. There are plenty verified ways that are deficit neutral, which he hasn't proposed ( he hasn't proposed anything). This legislation was written by the glorious underachievers of congress.

[Yonivore]

Obama is going to release his own bill soon, then the real game starts.
White House says no to that... That Obama won't be proposing new legislation.

[Yonivore]

You said his proposal was deficit neutral. There is no Presidential proposal..yet. There are plenty verified ways that are deficit neutral, which he hasn't proposed ( he hasn't proposed anything). This legislation was written by the glorious underachievers of congress.
I never said his proposal was deficit neutral...I predicted he will claim his proposal is deficit neutral and that, whatver it is, it won't be.

[nuclearfm]

White House says no to that... That Obama won't be proposing new legislation.

really, it's been reported for the past week.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.health.care/index.html

[Yonivore]

Speech is at 7PM, CST.
He already arrived on the Hill...at 2:15 ET

http://www.drudgereport.com/ot.jpg

[nuclearfm]

I never said his proposal was deficit neutral...I predicted he will claim his proposal is deficit neutral and that, whatver it is, it won't be.

Yeah, so you're predicting it yourself. Nice job. Explain how this wasn't bullshit again?

[Winehole23]

Hmmm. Somehow I doubt Congress will acquiesce to a brand new bill written for them by the President. There is the matter of institutional pride. Unless Obama has been negotiating with Congress sub rosa, on a separate track, a "new" presidential proposal won't fly.

It seems more likely to me that Obama will present a wish list to Congress. But, we'll see.

[SpurNation]

Question? When has any government bill voted into law ever been deficit neutral?

I'll skeptically accept proof that shows otherwise.

[doobs]

Obama will remind us of the urgency of passing legislation that won't even take effect until 2013.

[doobs]

Question? When has any government bill voted into law ever been deficit neutral?

I'll skeptically accept proof that shows otherwise.

How about a law to raise taxes or cut spending?

[nuclearfm]

Question? When has any government bill voted into law ever been deficit neutral?

I'll skeptically accept proof that shows otherwise.


Welfare reform in 94?

[ChumpDumper]

Thoughtful people consider the actual results of proposed legislation. What do you think will be the likely result of the public option?There are all kinds of possibilities. I personally think that a lot of people consider this as an all or nothing proposition and are fixated on the US or UK/Canada systems as the only possible options.

I think they are being overly simplistic, but that's politics these days.

[nuclearfm]

Hmmm. Somehow I doubt Congress will acquiesce to a brand new bill written for them by the President. There is the matter of institutional pride. Unless Obama has been negotiating with Congress sub rosa, on a separate track, a "new" presidential proposal won't fly.

It seems more likely to me that Obama will present a wish list to Congress. But, we'll see.

Well, I think the problem is that too many of them (mainly republicans) have felt brushed aside. The president is dealing with division within his own party (many of them demand he puts forth a public option or they won't vote). I'm willing to bet he starts taking charge soon, he's let them fuck this up for months.

[Yonivore]

really, it's been reported for the past week.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.health.care/index.html
I'm looking for it. Gibbs made the statement he wouldn't be proposing a new bill...maybe he just meant for this speech.

[nuclearfm]

I'm looking for it. Gibbs made the statement he wouldn't be proposing a new bill...maybe he just meant for this speech.

I heard that as well, for his speech. If you find it, post it. Its notable.

[SpurNation]

Welfare reform in 94?

I'm not sure. Is welfare today actually deficit neutral?

[Banzai]

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/const_dees.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

What gun legislation is being discussed anywhere?

[Yonivore]

I'm not sure. Is welfare today actually deficit neutral?
:lmao

[Crookshanks]

Talk about fear mongering - this President is a pro at it.

OBAMA FEAR: 'MORE WILL DIE' IF WE DO NOTHING ON HEALTH...
'DEFICIT WILL GROW. MORE FAMILIES WILL GO BANKRUPT. MORE BUSINESSES WILL CLOSE'...
SYSTEM 'AT BREAKING POINT'...
'TIME FOR GAMES HAS PASSED'...

President Barack Obama Wednesday demanded Congress act now on health reform, warning more Americans would die if Washington again does nothing to expand care and cut the costs of insurance.

Excerpt from tonight's speech:
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

Blah, Blah, Blah
Yada, Yada, Yada...

[Yonivore]

Talking about fear-mongering...

Obama demands health care action (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=TX-PAR-BQJ99&show_article=1)


President Barack Obama Wednesday demanded Congress act now on health reform, warning more Americans would die if Washington again does nothing to expand care and cut the costs of insurance.

'DEFICIT WILL GROW. MORE FAMILIES WILL GO BANKRUPT. MORE BUSINESSES WILL CLOSE'... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/obama-if-you-misrepresent-whats-in-the-plan-we-will-call-you-out/)

SYSTEM 'AT BREAKING POINT'...
'TIME FOR GAMES HAS PASSED'... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/obama-if-you-misrepresent-whats-in-the-plan-we-will-call-you-out/)

Sounding kind of shrill, huh?

[Yonivore]

I missed it by this much...

[Crookshanks]

Hey Yoni - great minds think alike, huh? We posted almost the same thing one after the other.

[Yonivore]

Hey Yoni - great minds think alike, huh? We posted almost the same thing one after the other.
Great minds realize Drudge is an excellent news aggregator (sp?).

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Andrea Mitchell: But What if the TelePrompTer Breaks Down?!!? No, really. She's that worried (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/09/msnbcs_andrea_mitchell_concerned_if_obamas_telepro mpter_will_break.html).

Folks, this is comedy gold.

[SpurNation]

This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

We'll see. Obama already knows that as it stands now he won't get approval. He's got to be open to proposals to not allow complete failure.

[Yonivore]

This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

We'll see. Obama already knows that as it stands now he won't get approval. He's got to be open to proposals to not allow complete failure.
He hasn't met with Republicans since April.

[Yonivore]

Still laughing at Andrea Mitchell...

I'm reminded...

Will Ferrell: Wake up and SMILE (http://bcmoney-mobiletv.com/view/371/Will%20Ferrell:%20Wake%20up%20and%20SMILE/#getCode)

[Crookshanks]

He hasn't met with Republicans since April.
Welllll - his door is always open, he's just not actually there! :lmao

[SpurNation]

He hasn't met with Republicans since April.

Other than his travel agent.

[Yonivore]

Tonight's drinking game:

1 drink every time God says "Let me be clear"
Someone over at NRO beat you to it...

Obama Health-Care Speech Bingo (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWIwMGNmMTA0Y2Y4NTI4MzUyMDVjOGIwYzA1YmNjM2Q=)


I'm sure you can think of your own cliches and predictable lines, but here's 25 to get you started. I'd note that making this into a drinking game can easily lead to alcohol poisoning.

1. "The time to act is now."

2. "Critics of this plan would have us do nothing."

3. "For too long, we have spent too much money to get too little care."

4. "The current path is unsustainable. Nothing less than a complete overhaul will give Americans the care they deserve."

5. "Under my plan, nothing will change for you and your doctor."

6. "This plan will cover more people, and give better care for everyone."

7. "This plan will spend less money."

8. "This debate has been far too divisive, with proponents losing heart, and opponents losing fingers."

9. "The public option is the best choice, a serious solution, and absolutely necessary for real reform. (applause) Now, that's not a veto threat."



10. "Yes, some say we've overestimated the savings from preventative care, perhaps exponentially. But others who I will not name say we've underestimated the savings."

11. "It's unsustainable for Americans like [insert tragic anecdote here]."

12. "It's time to put aside silly, meaningless terms like 'socialized medicine' and 'death panels' and 'the CBO says' and 'Douglas Elmendorf.'"

13. "People look at our national deficit ballooning, trillion after trillion, and ask, 'How can we afford this?' I look at the same numbers and ask, 'How can we not?'"

14. "I am tired of hearing insurance companies complain about preexisting conditions. It, like the economy and two wars, is just another problem I inherited from my predecessor."

15. "As I have said many times before . . ."

16. "Last year, I attacked my opponent for proposing a new tax on employer-based health insurance benefits. Tonight, I will reach across the aisle . . ."

17. "Now I will attempt to undermine potential future rival Mitt Romney by talking about how his plan in Massachusetts is a lot like mine . . ."

18. "I look forward to the day when no 11-year-old girl has to ask me about mean signs in the parking lot."

19. "Everything about this plan tells us it will be as effective at providing care as the stimulus is at creating jobs."

20. "By some estimates, wellness programs could reduce our medical costs to zero."

21. "Let me be clear."

22. "The American people did not send you here to squabble. They sent you here to help me create a fantastic and historic bill-signing ceremony."

23. "Remember Ted Kennedy. One look at this man, and you knew he understood the importance of good health to all Americans."

24. "Sometimes your tonsils are just fine."

25. "As I said in March, the time to act is now."

[ChumpDumper]

I hear the Republican response will be made by one of the proponents of Medicare "death panels" as defined by several here on this board.

Good choice. :tu

[clambake]

sounds good.

whats the problem?

[Yonivore]

Boehner hits the nail on the head (http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=143867)...


“We welcome the president to the Capitol tonight and we look forward to hearing what he has to say. But the question I have is ‘has the president been listening to the American people?’ I think the American people have made it pretty clear that they don’t really want another lecture, they want a new plan. They understand that we have a good system that works well for many people. Everybody understands that we’ve got problems in the current system that can be addressed. But to replace the entire current system with a big government-run plan is not what the American people want and certainly isn’t what I want.”

[ChumpDumper]

So where is the Republican plan?

They said they were putting the finishing touches on one months ago.

[clambake]

can't you guys trot anyone else out there besides boehner?

[Crookshanks]

So where is the Republican plan?

They said they were putting the finishing touches on one months ago.
I've heard several Republicans on Fox News talk about their plans - but since they include REAL Tort Reform, being able to shop plans in all 50 states, no Public Option, and expansion of HSA's - Pelosi and Reed won't let them see the light of day.

[Crookshanks]

can't you guys trot anyone else out there besides boehner?
Well - since he's the Minority Leader in the House, why wouldn't he speak?

[ChumpDumper]

So why haven't the Republicans released their plans to the public for review?

Have they run the plans by independent agencies to determine the costs and/or savings of their plan?

[clambake]

Well - since he's the Minority Leader in the House, why wouldn't he speak?

because he's the guy that always claims to have the plans.........and never shows up with plans.

just once i'd like him to submit a plan.

[Yonivore]

because he's the guy that always claims to have the plans.........and never shows up with plans.

just once i'd like him to submit a plan.
You guys are talking about Obama chunking out the Democrat plans and submitting his own and you want Republicans to take the time to present him a plan?

They've already given the President several good ideas -- all deficit neutral.

Tort Reform.

Lift regulations prohibiting portable policies from State to State.

Give the same tax deductions for individual insurance that you do for group insurance.

They have a framework...it's kind of hard to present it when neither the media nor the President are interested...and keep harping about how Republicans want to keep the status quo and do nothing.

[SpurNation]

So why haven't the Republicans released their plans to the public for review?

Have they run the plans by independent agencies to determine the costs and/or savings of their plan?

Maybe so. I'm sure they're not standing idely by waiting for this speech. Maybe some have been in contact with Obama.

It would make sence since it appears the original plan is not even in favor by the majority of Democrats.

[ChumpDumper]

Tort Reform.How much has tort reform reduced health care costs in Texas?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey Yoni - great minds think alike, huh? We posted almost the same thing one after the other.

:lmao

[Yonivore]

Well, I'm off to watch this at a sports bar. Should be fun. Actually, just going out with the guys...probably won't see the speech.

I'm sure you guys will fill me in.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe so. I'm sure they're not standing idely by waiting for this speech. Maybe some have been in contact with Obama.

It would make sence since it appears the original plan is not even in favor by the majority of Democrats.I absolutely think they are standing idly by.

Really, have you heard any Republican describe a comprehensive health care reform plan in the past month?

Or have you just heard them whining about death panels that members of their own party introduced and endorsed for Medicare?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, I'm off to watch this at a sports bar. Should be fun. Actually, just going out with the guys...probably won't see the speech.

I'm sure you guys will fill me in.

tell your boyfriend we said hello

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm off to watch this at a sports bar. Should be fun. Actually, just going out with the guys...probably won't see the speech.

I'm sure you guys will fill me in.Just in time to avoid answering another direct question.

Typical.

[SpurNation]

I absolutely think they are standing idly by.

Really, have you heard any Republican describe a comprehensive health care reform plan in the past month?

Or have you just heard them whining about death panels that members of their own party introduced and endorsed for Medicare?

Could be Chump. You know how this politic game goes. Parties always seem to wait to see how the initial outcome plays itself out before really getting involved.

Sad as it may be...that's the game of politics.

[iggypop123]

they are going to wait it out, why not they are in too deep to back out. it worked for them for clinton and they got congress. thats the plan. step 1 successful so far that they are sticking to their guns and not flip flopping. the problem lies in attracting anyone to the party that isnt white. its easy to say no to the pres but can you lure in the people?

[BadMoodBob]

Words.

[doobs]

There are all kinds of possibilities. I personally think that a lot of people consider this as an all or nothing proposition and are fixated on the US or UK/Canada systems as the only possible options.

I think they are being overly simplistic, but that's politics these days.

What do you think of Paul Krugman's take?

Wy5-OzyfyvA

t7WNxrySFQA&feature=related

[cheguevara]

Well, I'm off to watch this at a sports bar. Should be fun. Actually, just going out with the guys...


http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2008/07/rednecks.jpg

[Pistons < Spurs]

I thought this was an address to truly detail the proposed plan. To clarify things. To me it was just another rally/campaign speech bitching about the right. Lots of positive flowery mumbo-jumbo ... but short of substance.

[cheguevara]

I thought this was an address to truly detail the proposed plan. To clarify things. To me it was just another rally/campaign speech bitching about the right. Lots of positive flowery mumbo-jumbo ... but short of substance.

you really were expecting too much like 90% of the media.

Haters will hate, lovers will love but truth is, this was an above average speech regardless.

[iggypop123]

he basically said fuck you republicans doing nothing but bitching, republicans said bitch shut up dont indoctrinate me you "liar". then he talked about ted kennedy and that was it. just took 45 min when i just summed it up in 2 sentences.

[sam1617]

My biggest issue with the whole plan, people who don't want insurance are going to be forced to purchase it. Whats the penalty if they refuse to pay? Do they lose their right to exist? Do they go to jail?

[2centsworth]

One of his worse speeches. I would go into more detail but on an iPhone

[nkdlunch]

he basically said fuck you republicans doing nothing but bitching, republicans said bitch shut up dont indoctrinate me you "liar". then he talked about ted kennedy and that was it. just took 45 min when i just summed it up in 2 sentences.

very good analysis coming from a right winger as yourself.

Left wingers will say he did awesome, right wingers willl say he did nothing.


but his speech was geared to the ppl in the middle. he might have scored some points on those ppl, IMO

[nkdlunch]

My biggest issue with the whole plan, people who don't want insurance are going to be forced to purchase it. Whats the penalty if they refuse to pay? Do they lose their right to exist? Do they go to jail?

They will probably force you to buy something. Kinda like when they force you to buy collateral if you don't have car insurance.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My biggest issue with the whole plan, people who don't want insurance are going to be forced to purchase it. Whats the penalty if they refuse to pay? Do they lose their right to exist? Do they go to jail?

They do lose their right to exist and they have to go to prison.

[iggypop123]

very good analysis coming from a right winger as yourself.

Left wingers will say he did awesome, right wingers willl say he did nothing.


but his speech was geared to the ppl in the middle. he might have scored some points on those ppl, IMO

lmao right winger? im in cali wtf.
i did find that due with the glasses funny on his blackberry. dude take a iphone so you can play games!

[2centsworth]

Cut the waste first and then people will trust

[ChumpDumper]

What do you think of Paul Krugman's take?

Wy5-OzyfyvA

t7WNxrySFQA&feature=relatedI think it's possible but not inevitable.

[SpurNation]

$9Bil over 4 years to cover 30 mil people who "might" or might not want to use the public plan? (No way to do this without raising taxes on everybody)

This money will come from revenue garnished from eliminating waste from Medicare/Medicade and taxing the wealthiest a higher percentage? (Can't eliminate waste from medicare without eliminating services provided by medicare and can't raise taxes on the wealthiest without raising the costs of essential goods to the general public)

People (small businesses) will be forced to provide health insurance much like auto insurance mandates? (Hourly wages will be reduced in an already low hourly rate per hour pay scale)

Lots of things to consider. Hopefully Obama is willing to make concessions or there will be a lot of people knocking down his door.

[sam1617]

They will probably force you to buy something. Kinda like when they force you to buy collateral if you don't have car insurance.

Yes, but you can refuse to purchase a car. Are we supposed to refuse to live if we don't want to purchase health care?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, but you can refuse to purchase a car. Are we supposed to refuse to live if we don't want to purchase health care?You are free to do so.

[SnakeBoy]

Words.

Ok that made me laugh :lol.


So who was the republican senator that yelled out "You Lie". That was the best part of the speech. I thought some of plastic was going to melt off Pelosi's face she was so pissed. I'd have to agree that it was over the line though.

[sam1617]

You are free to do so.

Are we? Aren't there laws against committing suicide?

Edit: Just looked it up, according to wikipedia its apparently considered a common law crime, whatever that means...

[ChumpDumper]

Are we? Aren't there laws against committing suicide?Are there?

You tell me.

[Pistons < Spurs]

Ok that made me laugh :lol.


So who was the republican senator that yelled out "You Lie". That was the best part of the speech. I thought some of plastic was going to melt off Pelosi's face she was so pissed. I'd have to agree that it was over the line though.

They said it was a Republican from South Carolina ... I didn't catch the name.

[Mr. Peabody]

Are there?

You tell me.

Yeah, in Texas you could face a fine or community service if you commit suicide. Also, it goes on your permanent record.

[Mr. Peabody]

They said it was a Republican from South Carolina ... I didn't catch the name.

Joe Wilson

[Marcus Bryant]

So I have to buy health insurance just like auto insurance except that it's actually a privilege to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Is my existence now a privilege?

[sam1617]

Are there?

You tell me.

Anyways, that is beside the point. How is it constitutional to tell someone that they have to pay a fee for health insurance, even if they don't want it?

I mean, you can dodge every tax in America if you try hard enough and make enough sacrifices, but if Obama plans on forcing people to purchase health care, even if they don't want it, how do they plan on enforcing it?

[SnakeBoy]

he basically said fuck you republicans doing nothing but bitching, republicans said bitch shut up dont indoctrinate me you "liar". then he talked about ted kennedy and that was it. just took 45 min when i just summed it up in 2 sentences.

You left out the part where he kept saying my plan bla bla, my plan bla bla, my plan bla bla, and then said I don't have have plan let's come up with something.

[SpurNation]

So I have to buy health insurance just like auto insurance except that it's actually a privilege to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Is my existence now a privilege?

I warned about this in another post. Noticed how he emphasized "emergency room" care.

This is ground work for emergency care to be refused if one doesn't have health insurance.

[Mr. Peabody]

I warned about this in another post. Noticed how he emphasized "emergency room" care.

This is ground work for emergency care to be refused if one doesn't have health insurance.

Ha. He mentioned emergency room care because people without insurance have to go to the emergency rooms to get care and we all subsidize that form of care.

[Marcus Bryant]

Let me be clear.

[Pistons < Spurs]

OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."

THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.

In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.

He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.

"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.

Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check

[Pistons < Spurs]

let me be clear.

you lie!

[Yonivore]

Wow! Sounds like he screwed the pooch, royally.

"You Lie!" Love it.

:lmao

I bet the networks will be reluctant to give his ass another hour anytime in the near future.

[SnakeBoy]

3aE_nEoE5kE

[SpurNation]

Ha. He mentioned emergency room care because people without insurance have to go to the emergency rooms to get care and we all subsidize that form of care.

No. He said health insurance will be mandatory thus requiring people to have health insurance. I'm just eluding to a slipery slope that could possibly arise in that situation.

It's already happened to people even in the current system that doesn't require health insurance in an emergency room environment.

That plus from an economic standpoint... if this stands pat as outlined in the speech...For those that think this will not financially effect the general public...this course will force elevated cost of essential goods while salaries will be reduced. Especially to the hourly wage population.

But one can't say the general public wasn't forewarned during the election. Most heard...blah, blah, (Spread the wealth), blah, blah, (make the rich pay). The general public will suffer financially with this reform bill hence in his speech tonight different during his campaign..."All must be willing to contribute".

[hater]

So I have to buy health insurance just like auto insurance except that it's actually a privilege to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Is my existence now a privilege?

you know you have to pay taxes too right?

not only your existence i privilege, working is privilege

[txallstar]

didn't watch the speech so now it's mandatory to have health insurance? i know he's been against forcing every one to have health insurance except for children and no fines for those who don't want or can't afford insurance, something he's been against and some in the party are for and they are trotting out their own proposal.

health care makes up 1/6th of the economy so every one wants a piece of the action and nothing will ever get done, not soon.

we all know it's needs fixing. healthcare is insanely expensive for those who do or don't and favors the companies not the consumer. bottom line health insurance needs to be in the market place for competition to drive down prices and go back to non employer based coverage 50 yrs ago before wage freeze wars. companies gave out rewards with discounted health insurance instead of raises thus employee base coverage was born and blew up. develop regulated standard guidelines across the board and be able to keep your insurance and take it with you if quit or change jobs (not the cobra bs) allow companies if they choose, to offer reembursments or vouchers towards insurance ala which reward you for healthy behavior or means of enticing future employees which some do now already

[Marcus Bryant]

you know you have to pay taxes too right?

not only your existence i privilege, working is privilege


On income, on property, on the result of an action, such as working, not on your existence. Try again.

[hitmanyr2k]

On income, on property, on the result of an action, such as working, not on your existence. Try again.

In case you haven't noticed your income, your property, your "actions" are part of your existence. If you don't have any of the above (especially an income) then what use are you? :lol

[ManuTP9]

Joe Wilson said "you lie!"

[Dr. Gonzo]

…do so again tonight.

Our liar-in-Chief will go before both houses of Congress tonight and give his 1,435,353rd speech on Health Care, er…Health Insurance, no…Health Care; wait, I think it’s Health Insurance again…reform. I don’t expect his speech will change the hearts and minds of anyone. For one thing, no one the president needs to reach will be watching. The ratings for every televised address the president has done on this issue have dropped with each subsequent appearance…as do his personal approval ratings every time he opens his mouth on the subject. I expect this televised appearance will follow that pattern.

And, if the White House lead-ins are accurate, we’ve heard this speech before; both from Obama and, also, from his subordinates…over and over, ad nauseum. The President, himself, has given over 110 speeches on Health Care (Insurance) Reform since taking office. And, if the speeches weren’t televised, they’ve been dutifully hyped by the media afterward.

Nonetheless, he’s going to go before your elected representatives tonight and – once again – make his case for enacting Health Care legislation. And, since the White House is saying he won’t be proposing new legislation or changing any of the major elements of his plan, we have a pretty good idea of the lies he’s going to spew forth doing it. While everyone, who bothers to watch, has already heard the lies, and the rebutted facts debunking them, let’s repeat them – here – as a prediction and to remind us just how dishonest a process this whole reform effort has been.

So, in no particular order, the top five untruths, misrepresentations, or outright lies you’ll hear tonight – if you watch.

(a) President Obama will say there are 42 to 47 (it changes) million uninsured Americans.

This falls into the category of lies repeated – and debunked – so often it’s just white noise that not many people even hear anymore. The actual number, when you weed out the wealthy that self-insure, the young who choose not to insure, the illegal aliens who shouldn’t be insured (at anyone’s expense but their own), the elderly who will be enrolled in Medicare when they become ill and need a doctor, and the poor who are either underreported by Medicaid or who – similar to the elderly – will be enrolled when they show up needing medical care, you end up with a number somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million.

And, in a country of 350 million people, I think we can come up with a health care system that accommodates the needs of these people without completely dismantling a health care system – and 17% of our economy along with it – with which 85-90% of the population is satisfied. This is why Obama has to falsely inflate the numbers.

But, the 42 (or 47) million number is a non-starter. The President might just as well get up there tonight and say we need to enact this legislation to insure the rich, healthy, and illegal aliens. In other words, ask Americans to pay for people to be insured who don’t need it, don’t won’t it, or shouldn’t get it at their expense.

(b) President Obama will say his plan is “deficit neutral.”

This is a bald-faced lie. None of the proposals yet submitted – including HR3200 – has been deficit neutral, (at least not in the first decade). Both the CBO and OMB have said as much with varying but undeniable numbers. And, even those proposals that claim they will be deficit neutral, beginning 10 years out, should be viewed in the context – and through the rightful skepticism – of our experience, as Americans, with every other massive government program ever developed; beginning with the two major health-related ones, Medicare and Medicaid.

The administration’s claims rely heavily on wild-assed guesses (known in the bidness as “assumptions”) about revenues and costs. Name one government program that has even come close to estimating projected figures on anything. And, if you do manage to come up with one – it won’t be Medicare or Medicaid. Hell, just look at Obama’s projections on how his stimulus plan would affect unemployment over the past 8 months – and the reality. They bear no resemblance to one another.

Right or wrong, you can’t predict the unexpected. Nobody knows how much money will be raised by his schemes to tax or streamline or reduce fraud. And, nobody knows how much will be spent either. What we do know is that you can’t think of a government entitlement program that has come in costing less than treble the amount estimated at the outset.

If any of his cost-saving schemes would work, we’d of already applied them to Medicare and Medicaid.

So he's going to say "deficit neutral" and we should point and laugh. It's not going to be deficit neutral. It's going to cost more than expected and the schemes he proposes to make it deficit neutral are going to generate less revenue or savings than expected. The only proposed plans that would be deficit neutral have been Republican plans or the suggestions of people like John Mackey.

But, if we’re all honest with one another, we know the point of the whole exercise is neither to provide universal health care nor save money doing it. It’s to advance a socialist objective, exert control over individual Americans, redistribute wealth, and to put Obama in the history books with some monumental legacy.

(c) President Obama will identify the “obstacles” to this progressive and necessary reform as one or more of the various demons he’s invoked since he started this crusade. Most certainly, Republicans will head that list; but, you’re just as likely to hear about the money-grubbing insurance companies or, even, the tonsil-stealing, foot-amputating doctors.

It doesn’t really matter, Obama needs a villain and he certainly can’t point to the vast majority of Americans that a) see no need for the reform or b) see a need for reform but don’t want it to be nationalized or socialized medicine.

Yes, I’m sure there’ll be references to the “mobsters” or, to use Reid’s term, “evil mongers” who have more vehemently opposed his plan at Tea Party and Town Hall meetings over the past month and more.

But, those are all red herrings.

The Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. If this were just unwarranted partisan rancor, President Obama would have already made the case to his party and they’d of rammed through some legislation by now…after all, they did it with the Stimulus Bill. But, he can’t do that because, he realizes he doesn’t even have the unanimous support of his own party…he doesn’t have the votes to pass this monstrosity.

Why? Because the Democrat legislators still listening to their constituents know how unpopular, dangerous, unwarranted, and unnecessary is this stupid plan. I think he’s in a hot box with his own party with many of them, standing on third base, saying they won’t vote for a plan without a “public option” (government option) and with just as many, at home plate, saying they won’t vote for one with it.

It’s entertaining to watch. Republicans have nothing to do with his inability to convince his own party. If he wanted to blame the true obstructionists, he should be pointing at the congressmen of his own party. But, the only problem with that is it would also be blaming their constituents – regular Americans…a bunch of ‘em. Probably more than the 10 million uninsured and possible approaching the 47 million Obama says are uninsured.

(d) President Obama will claim his opponents – and, Republicans in particular – don’t have an alternative plan; that they are satisfied with the status quo and want to do nothing.

Patently untrue.

While believing – and saying – that doing nothing would be better than doing what is being proposed in HR3200 or by President Obama, that’s not what his opponents are proposing. Saying so is dishonest or ignorant. It’s not a proposal to do nothing and keep the status quo; it’s an assertion that doing nothing, while not acceptable, is still better than what is being proposed.

Granted, the mainstream media hasn’t exactly given Republicans the opportunity, air time, or column inches, to make their case, that they have to the White House but, nonetheless, there are proposals out there. But, maybe, if Obama had met with Republicans, more recently than April, he would be more familiar with the alternatives they’re forwarding.

In fact, Republicans have issued a proposed framework and they have floated several specific reform proposals from tort reform to making individual policies tax deductible (like employer plans), to lifting government regulations prohibiting interstate portability of policies being the three that occur to me off the top of my head.

(e) President Obama will say the “public” option won’t be subsidized.

In reassuring tones, he’s going to promise the “public” option (or the compromise “co-ops”) isn’t a Trojan Horse for an eventual single-payer system. He’ll use terms like “competition” and “choice” to bolster his argument. And, it will be done in the context of demonizing the evil, profit-driven insurance companies or sadistic physicians that hack on your relatives, unnecessarily, for money.

It is the “competition” statement that requires the lie; although, I believe his plan will ultimately put the lie to the “choice” statement, as well, by driving Americans from commercial insurers to the “public” option using various means, including, undercutting on price, more onerous regulations (i.e. requiring commercial insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions or basic treatments not normally covered), and insurance mandates.

But, back to the first point because, it is the most immediate lie.

Everyone – even Barney Frank, who forgets to wipe up his chin drool – knows if the public option is subsidized, at all, it will not provide true competition for the private insurance market. It automatically gives an unfair advantage to the “public” option. So he will lie and say that it won't be subsidized.

There is simply no way the President or the Democrats will allow the public option to fail once it has been established. When it starts operating in the red – and it will, damn near immediately – the Democrats will call for subsidizing it saying, "Oh, we can't take people's insurance away now and we can't raise premiums for all these people!"

Already, four of the five bills passed out of committee have included mandates and subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. Many – not all – but, a vast majority, of the people who are mandated to be insured (I think the proposed fine, for being uninsured, is up to $3,800) and can’t afford it – therefore receiving the subsidies – will head straight to the “public” option.

That’s subsidizing out of the box. Why not just make them eligible for Medicare or Medicaid? It seems to me the laws for those programs would be easier to amend than creating this monstrosity out of whole cloth. But, that’s just me.So, to sum up, the president is going to stay true to form tonight. He will lie his ass off.

Also remember this, it’s not just about the “public” option. The media have concentrated, almost exclusively, on the debate over the “public” option…and, in the process, have tried to make it appear this is the only objection opponents to the plan have. I think that’s intentional on their part.

Considering the shell game, of compromising with a “co-op” plan or dropping the “public” option altogether (and this would only happen if he were able to convince the rabid left it would be included by hook, or crook, somewhere down the road), in which he’s liable to engage tonight, this would be a perfect setup to then say, “look, we’ve dropped the ‘public’ option, any other opposition is unreasonable, right?”

Yeah, wrong. The “public” option is only one of a number of things wrong with his plan. Here are some others – all taken from various Obama proposals or from the several bills being batted around Congress.

a) Forcing insurers to accept all applicants.

If you force insurers to accept all applicants, no matter the risks, one of two things must happen. You raise premiums to cover the inevitable costs of insuring anyone who applies (and brings with them pre-existing conditions, risky behaviors, or deteriorating health) or, you limit what you cover in terms of care. I suspect there will be legislation prohibiting the companies from excluding certain medical treatments and therapies so, you’re left with raising premiums.

When that happens, the “public” option will be the safe harbor to which people will flee.

This proposal alone could put most insurers out of business.

This will lead to the second big problem (and, I alluded to it in one of the lies above).

b) Subsidizing premiums for those unable to afford private insurance.

From where is that money coming? Yep. Taxpayers. So, not only will forcing insurance companies to raise rates (or cut care [unlikely to be allowed]), it will impose a new burden on the roughly 50% of Americans paying income taxes.

Like most – probably all but, I can’t be sure – Democrat proposals, over the past eight months, this is a money pit; created at a time when we’re in the middle of Biden’s “Great Recession.” Not exactly an ideal time to impose a new dead-weight loss on the economy.

It’s never the right time to raise taxes but, even the dumbest Democrats (Obama apparently excepted) know doing so during an economic downturn is a horrible idea.

c) Individual Mandates.

ObamaCare, backed by the threat of fees/fines (more taxes) – latest proposal set at $3,800.00 – for people who remain uninsured, will require individuals to have health insurance. The government is going to force you to spend your money (or, they’ll spend mine if you can’t afford it) on this – even if you don’t want.

Sorry, but the auto insurance analogy doesn’t work. We require people to carry liability insurance so the harm they cause others, can be repaired. The law does not require vehicle owners to have comprehensive insurance protecting their own vehicles. Exposing yourself to loss is – and should remain – a personal decision.

Many people, particularly the wealthy (who can afford to self-insure) and the young (who choose to face the risk their out-of-pocket expenses will not exceed the amount they’d pay in premiums), d0 not want to purchase health insurance. Most people pay between $5,000 and $6,000 dollars a year for health insurance. The vast majority incur medical expenses amounting to only a fraction of that. To some, it is worth the risk to not insure…they should be allowed to accept that risk.

d) Employer Mandates.

During the debates, Senators McCain and Obama jousted over this. McCain said Obama would impose punitive mandates on employers. Obama, in a less than convincing manner, indicated he would not.

ObamaCare will require employers – including small businesses least able to a new fixed cost – to buy into insurance plans for their employees. Failure to participate will result in penalties…yet another tax. This will be an economic disaster for small business, already suffering through yet another hike in the minimum wage. And, just as with every time the minimum wage is raise, the choice for small business is simple; reduce your workforce (and, in this case, to a point below the threshold of ObamaCare) to avoid the additional expense.

More unemployment! Good job Mr. President.

Barring that – because some businesses must have a certain number of employees to remain profitable – they will have to pony up and either provide the insurance or pay the penalties. The cost of this can only come from a few places. Salaries, production of goods, provision of services, or profits.

Translated, ObamaCare results in lower pay, higher unemployment, fewer goods, degraded service, and reduced profits. Some employers may just decide to go out of business.
ObamaCare is anti-prosperity. It is going to hurt our economy in a deep and lasting way and not just because of the “public” option.

Health care in the US is covered by three main systems-- Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Two of these systems are bankrupt, and will be unable to make payments beyond 2017. The third is solvent, and can make all of its payments for the foreseeable future.

ObamaCare proposes to take the one system meeting its obligations and fold it into the two systems that are bankrupt.

Damn, I didn’t even get into the eventual “death panels” that will be required when the government suddenly realizes they can’t treat everyone…so, they’re going to have to ration care.

That’s where Dr. Zeke Emmanuel’s “Quality Adjusted Life” expectancy and John Holdren’s communist population control theories come into play. After all, they’ve got to cut costs somewhere…

Obama will say that’s fear-mongering.

Ask yourself this. What is Obama claiming will happen if his Health Care…er, Health Insurance…damnit, Health Care Reform plan isn’t passed?

It’ll be catastrophic, right? Well, that’s fear-mongering, too. Every political decision is driven by the fears of action or inaction…so, save the indignation.

You have a lot of fucking time on your hands.

[Yonivore]

You have a lot of fucking time on your hands.
Not really, I'm just efficient.

[Marcus Bryant]

In case you haven't noticed your income, your property, your "actions" are part of your existence. If you don't have any of the above (especially an income) then what use are you? :lol

If you don't do anything you're still taxed. It's not hard to fathom that a nation with an official 9.5% unemployment rate might have a few individuals without an income.

Anyways, let's bring back poll taxes. Your existence demands the right to vote, holding elections costs money, and, after all, we'd hate for anyone to go without voting.

[sam1617]

didn't watch the speech so now it's mandatory to have health insurance? i know he's been against forcing every one to have health insurance except for children and no fines for those who don't want or can't afford insurance, something he's been against and some in the party are for and they are trotting out their own proposal.

health care makes up 1/6th of the economy so every one wants a piece of the action and nothing will ever get done, not soon.

we all know it's needs fixing. healthcare is insanely expensive for those who do or don't and favors the companies not the consumer. bottom line health insurance needs to be in the market place for competition to drive down prices and go back to non employer based coverage 50 yrs ago before wage freeze wars. companies gave out rewards with discounted health insurance instead of raises thus employee base coverage was born and blew up. develop regulated standard guidelines across the board and be able to keep your insurance and take it with you if quit or change jobs (not the cobra bs) allow companies if they choose, to offer reembursments or vouchers towards insurance ala which reward you for healthy behavior or means of enticing future employees which some do now already

I agree that it needs fixing, but why does it need to be fixed by the federal government? Why not at a state level? If Massachusetts wants a public option, let them have it. If someone else wants something different, let them do that. Move to a state that has the plan that you like, everyone is happy.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Not really, I'm just efficient.

Seriously, why do you give a shit anyway about what's going on? Is posting on ST.com going to change anything? Does being pissed off about shit you can't change really worth it?

[sam1617]

In case you haven't noticed your income, your property, your "actions" are part of your existence. If you don't have any of the above (especially an income) then what use are you? :lol

I disagree. It is possible to survive without an income, or one that is so far beneath the poverty level that it is untaxed. Its hard, but possible.

As for property taxes and sales taxes, last I checked, they were local and state taxes. There still theoretically is a difference between the two.

[Yonivore]

I disagree. It is possible to survive without an income, or one that is so far beneath the poverty level that it is untaxed. Its hard, but possible.
Hard? Nearly half of the population does this now.

[sam1617]

Seriously, why do you give a shit anyway about what's going on? Is posting on ST.com going to change anything? Does being pissed off about shit you can't change really worth it?

Why do you give a shit about him giving a shit? Is posting on ST.com going to change anything? Does being pissed off about shit you can't change really worth it?

Anyways, theoretically we live in a democratic nation, so you really can change the shit too, so I'm not sure why you wrote that...

[hope4dopes]

You left out the part where he kept saying my plan bla bla, my plan bla bla, my plan bla bla, and then said I don't have have plan let's come up with something.

Actually that was the only blah blah blah thing he did say.I found it real amussing how the democrats were SO EXCITED just to be in his prescence.
Trying I guess to give the impression that at least somebody in America doesn't feel like a fool for voting for the Obama/Soros ticket.
A whole lot of nothing

[txallstar]

but you shouldn't have to move to a state to get cheaper coverage or one you like, that would suck.

the only thing the gov needs to do is develope a set of standard guidelines across the board (i.e. removal of pre-existing conditions) and allow it to go to the market place, you shouldn't have to move to another state you should be allowed to buy coverage no matter the area from any company

[txallstar]

Joe Wilson said "you lie!"
he also apologized, when obama asserted his position, right after

[hope4dopes]

he basically said fuck you republicans doing nothing but bitching, republicans said bitch shut up dont indoctrinate me you "liar". then he talked about ted kennedy and that was it. just took 45 min when i just summed it up in 2 sentences.

Boy this is dillusional. He doesn't have to say fuck you to the Republicans there is not enough of them to matter. HIS OWN PARTY ARE THE PEOPLE HE'S GOTTA CONVINCE,and the american people of course....lotta luck with that.

[Yonivore]

Seriously, why do you give a shit anyway about what's going on? Is posting on ST.com going to change anything? Does being pissed off about shit you can't change really worth it?
Why are you here?

[txallstar]

I disagree. It is possible to survive without an income, or one that is so far beneath the poverty level that it is untaxed. Its hard, but possible.

As for property taxes and sales taxes, last I checked, they were local and state taxes. There still theoretically is a difference between the two.

not impossible have some kids get on welfare have some more get more money :lol

[sam1617]

but you shouldn't have to move to a state to get cheaper coverage or one you like, that would suck.

the only thing the gov needs to do is develope a set of standard guidelines across the board (i.e. removal of pre-existing conditions) and allow it to go to the market place, you shouldn't have to move to another state you should be allowed to buy coverage no matter the area from any company

Why not? You have to move to a different school district to get better schools, to a different county to get better property tax rates, to a different state to avoid state income taxes. And I agree that certain regulations seem to make sense, however I just don't see the issue with having states do it on their own. Its part of their job, at least in my opinion.

[txallstar]

states can have the power but you should be able to get that cheaper coverage no matter the location, like auto insurance, etc. shop online find it, whatever, just needs to be in the market place some how and not in the hands of employers namely big cap employers who can afford to offer employees insurance, sucks for every one else.

you can move to different county or school district and not have to change jobs or move out of state and sacrifice your income for cheaper coverage, plus only a handful of states that have 0 state income tax.

any ways...my brain hurts..:sleep

[iggypop123]

Not really, I'm just efficient.

like a communist!

[hope4dopes]

like a communist!
Whatta you talking about motherfuckers couldn't even feed themselves.

[sam1617]

Whatta you talking about motherfuckers couldn't even feed themselves.

But they starved very efficiently.

[hope4dopes]

But they starved very efficiently. I grant you that.

[hater]

On income, on property, on the result of an action, such as working, not on your existence. Try again.

LMAO

EVERYONE pays taxes. stop nitpicking. show me 1 person you know that isn't suppossed to pay taxes.

maybe a person with no arms and legs pays no taxes. but you know what, I'm sure he gets health insurance, at your expense.

[hater]

fuck taxes, it's a communist belief!

[Yonivore]

Good morning! I'll leave you with a particularly biting analysis of Obama's speech...

Obama's Speech: Did It Help Him? (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024478.php)

September 9, 2009 Posted by John at 8:51 PM

From a policy standpoint, there was nothing new in President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight. It can only be assessed, therefore, in political terms. I read the transcript rather than watching it, but the speech struck me as reasonably effective. I assume the delivery was standard Obama--smooth, generally flat, occasionally a bit whiny.

One striking aspect of the speech was that Obama kept talking about the "plan" that he "announced" tonight--but there is no plan; not in writing, anyway. Not unless Obama meant Nancy Pelosi's House bill, but he didn't seem to, since he made a point of saying that details remain to be filled in, referred to work still going on in committee, and said that "his plan" is open to alternatives to the public option. This vagueness gives him a sort of deniability: what he was describing was more his concept of the qualities health care legislation should have, rather than a specific bill. Whether that was politically smart remains to be seen. So far, vagueness hasn't seemed to be the President's friend on this issue.

Here are some excerpts from the speech that I thought were noteworthy:


Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.

Then, a few minutes later:


Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.

By far the biggest scaremonger on this issue has been Obama himself.


Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

I'm not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not "bickering." Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a "game." This kind of gratuitous insult--something we never heard from President Bush, for example--is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.

I assume most people noticed how, in tonight's speech, Obama's assurance that we will not lose our present insurance coverage has been scaled back. This was after thousands of critics pointed out that under the Democrats' proposals, many people (more than 100 million according to some estimates) will in fact lose the insurance coverage they now have:


[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

That's true, of course. No one ever said it did. What the Democrats' plan does do, however, is give employers the opportunity and, depending on pricing, the incentive to terminate their employees' plans and dump them into the public system. And whether private insurance companies can compete with the public "option" depends on whether Obama keeps his pledge that the public program won't be subsidized.


[I]nsurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

How does that work? Better coverage for more people at less cost. Does anyone actually believe that is possible? I don't think so.

Obama described his plan for an insurance exchange where those who are not part of a larger plan will be able to buy coverage. He then added:


This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.

But wait! Aren't people dying? The Democrats tried to ram their bill through Congress before the August recess, with essentially no debate and with virtually no one having read it. Their theory was that we are facing such a dire emergency that there is not a moment to lose. If, in fact, we have four years to spare, could we maybe stop trying to cram the bill down Americans' throats?


Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those - particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.

That's true, of course. There are millions of people, mostly young and single, who choose not to buy health insurance or take a job where compensation comes largely in the form of benefits (same thing) because they have made a rational decision that for them, health insurance isn't worth the money. As Americans, they should have that right. The problem is that, in the unlikely event they do get sick, they know they will be treated anyway.


That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

Traditionally, it was liability insurance that drivers were required to carry, not to protect themselves, but to protect others from their possible negligence. It is only because of no-fault laws that most states now require drivers to carry insurance that includes first-party coverage. There are some similarities, but many differences, between automobile and health insurance.


[U]nless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek - especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - just can't be achieved.

This is a key point that many will overlook. One of the central purposes of nearly all health care "reform" proposals is to force young people into the system to help pay older peoples' bills. Why is it that you can't force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions--i.e., "insure" against something that has already happened, a logical impossibility--unless you force young people to "do their part"? Insurance companies, and, eventually, the government as single payer, need young people to pay premiums that far exceed any actual risk to subsidize the known losses that will come from being forced to "insure" people whose medical conditions are not risks but certainties.

Consider the analogy to life insurance: could a dying, 90-year-old person expect an insurance company to issue him a million dollar life insurance policy? Maybe, but it would cost close to a million dollars. Why can life insurance companies sell policies at rates that people consider reasonable? Only because they are insuring against premature death, and the insured has been paying premiums for many years, during most of which time there was little risk of his dying. The same principle applies, pretty closely, to health insurance.


Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

No, it isn't. The Democrats' bill doesn't call the agencies it sets up "death panels," it says they will decide on "best practices." But any socialized medicine scheme saves money by rationing care. Who gets shorted, the politically powerful? No, of course not; the elderly and those who are otherwise helpless. In the United Kingdom, the death panel goes by the Orwellian acronym "NICE."


There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

This is an outright lie, as Congressman Joe Wilson couldn't resist blurting out during Obama's speech. The Democrats defeated Republican-sponsored amendments that would have attempted, at least, to prevent illegals from being treated under the House version of Obama's plan. I think everyone expects that if Obamacare becomes law, illegals will receive benefits on an equal basis with citizens.


And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

More oily language from the master of the half-truth. Under Obama's plan, it won't be necessary for federal dollars to fund abortions, at least not until socialized medicine actually arrives. Insurance dollars will fund abortions. The House bill sets up a nameless, unaccountable committee that will decide what coverages must be included in any approved private insurance policy. Those required coverages, you can be 100 percent certain, will include the costs of abortions. But Obama will take no responsibility; those are just "best practices."

This seems to me to be the most critical moment in Obama's speech:


My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.

In fact, Obama and Congressional Democrats have zero interest in increasing choice and competition. If they did, there is an easy solution. There are over 1,000 health insurance companies in the United States; why do you think it is that in Alabama, one company has 90 percent of the business? It is because there are major legal obstacles to insurance companies operating across state lines. State legislatures, and lots of the companies, like it this way. Competition is hard. But if Obama really wanted to expand "choice and competition" in health care, all he would have to do is go along with the Republican proposal to allow health insurance companies to sell on a national basis. Like, say, computer companies, beer companies, automobile companies, law firms, and pretty much everyone else. The Democrats' refusal to allow existing health insurance companies to compete against each other nationwide, more than anything else, puts the lie to their nonsense about "choice and competition."


Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business.

Really? We've all seen the YouTube video where Obama says that under his plan, private health insurance will be driven into extinction over a period of ten to twenty years. Has he changed his mind? When? Why? Does President Obama fail to understand the ubiquity of YouTube? Does he not understand that many millions of Americans consider him a liar when he says things like this?

President Obama talked about the "public option" and assured listeners that it would not be subsidized by the government:


I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.

Is it churlish to point out that profits are not overhead? It might be if this were just a slip of the tongue on the stump. But this was a speech that was carefully crafted by Obama and his top advisers. They really do not know the first thing about business or economics. So why should we put them in charge of our economy?


I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

Actually, the administration has said that around half the cost of the plan, $500 billion, would be paid for by cuts in Medicare. So it isn't exactly "demagoguery and distortion" to suggest that there might be cuts in Medicare.


[N]ot a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

I should hope not, since there isn't any Medicare trust fund, just like there isn't any Social Security trust fund.


The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud...Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.

But wait! If we can identify hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and we know how to eliminate it, why haven't we done so already? Why don't we do so--right now!--regardless of the administration's highly controversial health care bill?

There is no possible answer to these questions. The Obama plan--whatever it is, once reduced to writing--depends for most of its financing on the bare assertion that we are currently wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, and that we will stop wasting that money only if taxpayers knuckle under to Obamacare.

This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people.

[LnGrrrR]

I wasn't kidding about the bathroom stall thing.

Maybe this forum is like a closet where b_d can't vent his hostilities, so as not to inflict them on his (or her) loved ones. Maybe all the piss and vinegar makes b_d more pleasant to be around, for those who know him in meatspace. Kinda sucks for us tho.

Ha! A fan of cyberpunk, WH23?

[SpurNation]

^^^Points well crafted and concerns I was having while watching the speech.

Though the speaking points are true regarding the issue of health care...the ends to the means couldn't be farther apart.

[LnGrrrR]

My biggest issue with the whole plan, people who don't want insurance are going to be forced to purchase it. Whats the penalty if they refuse to pay? Do they lose their right to exist? Do they go to jail?

Probably the same thing that happens to people without car insurance.

[sam1617]

Probably the same thing that happens to people without car insurance.

They take away your license eventually. How does that work with your life?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Not really, I'm just efficient.

at copying and pasting.

[ChumpDumper]

They take away your license eventually. How does that work with your life?Death panel!

[doobs]

They take away your license eventually. How does that work with your life?

Basically, it will be a tax on all Americans, including those who make less than $250,000 per year.

[sam1617]

Basically, it will be a tax on all Americans, including those who make less than $250,000 per year.

I thought that this plan wasn't costing us a dime extra.


Oh, another question, what is the long term mentioned in this quote? How does this math work?


And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Last I checked, health care costs was like 4 trillion bucks a year total. So, is long term like 200 years?

[ChumpDumper]

Basically, it will be a tax on all Americans, including those who make less than $250,000 per year.We already pay for health care for the uninsured through taxes and overcharging of the insured. I suppose you could be for the status quo or demand the practice be stopped and let people die or maybe quit the shell game and actually codify and regulate what is already happening.

[clambake]

We already pay for health care for the uninsured through taxes and overcharging of the insured. I suppose you could be for the status quo or demand the practice be stopped and let people die or maybe quit the shell game and actually codify and regulate what is already happening.

maybe he likes the sensation.....from behind.

[sam1617]

We already pay for health care for the uninsured through taxes and overcharging of the insured. I suppose you could be for the status quo or demand the practice be stopped and let people die or maybe quit the shell game and actually codify and regulate what is already happening.

Why codify and regulate at the federal level, whats wrong with doing it at the state level. Its what Massachusetts did, and they supposedly are happy.

The needs of Texans are not the same needs as those of Oregonians, the federal government is incapable of providing a plan that is well suited for both of those. Texas is theoretically best at providing insurance reform best suited for Texans.

[ChumpDumper]

Why codify and regulate at the federal level, whats wrong with doing it at the state level. Its what Massachusetts did, and they supposedly are happy.

The needs of Texans are not the same needs as those of Oregonians, the federal government is incapable of providing a plan that is well suited for both of those. Texas is theoretically best at providing insurance reform best suited for Texans.So what do you propose Texas to do?

[sam1617]

Not implement a public plan. Provide some of the insurance reforms mentioned. Continue in reforming medical lawsuits. Allow easier creation of medical insurance co-ops. Figure out a better way to handle emergency care for illegal aliens, what that way is, I don't know...

Edit: And if the state decides to do something crazy, or something that I don't like, at least my vote counts for 1 of 24 million, rather than 1 of 304 million. I have a greater say and more influence if actions are taken at a state level.

[ChumpDumper]

Not implement a public plan.Why not?
Provide some of the insurance reforms mentioned.Which ones?
Continue in reforming medical lawsuits.Has the previous tort reform had any effect whatsoever on health care costs?
Allow easier creation of medical insurance co-ops.So co-ops are good?
Figure out a better way to handle emergency care for illegal aliens, what that way is, I don't know...Fair enough.

[LnGrrrR]

They take away your license eventually. How does that work with your life?

*shrug* Got me. The same thing that happens to people who don't pay property taxes or whatnot.

If you can't afford to pay the health insurance tax, then they will provide vouchers, etc etc. That's already been documented.

[LnGrrrR]

I thought that this plan wasn't costing us a dime extra.

Yes, that's called lying. It's what politicians do. :lol

[doobs]

We already pay for health care for the uninsured through taxes and overcharging of the insured. I suppose you could be for the status quo or demand the practice be stopped and let people die or maybe quit the shell game and actually codify and regulate what is already happening.

I'm not even saying I disagree with the idea.

I'm just pointing out that this might become a political liability for Obama, given his tax pledges during the campaign.

[Wild Cobra]

When will president Obama and the demonrats stop lying?

[Marcus Bryant]

LMAO

EVERYONE pays taxes. stop nitpicking. show me 1 person you know that isn't suppossed to pay taxes.

maybe a person with no arms and legs pays no taxes. but you know what, I'm sure he gets health insurance, at your expense.

Right. The federal government should force you to pay for X because, hey, you gotta pay taxes!

Man, this country is fucking stupid.

[LnGrrrR]

When will politicians stop lying?

Fixed it for you.

And the answer is... *drumroll*

Never. Obviously.

Also, do you think saying "demonrats" helps your credibility?

[hater]

Right. The federal government should force you to pay for X because, hey, you gotta pay taxes!

you obviously didnt listen to the speech :rolleyes. therein are the reasons why fed wants to force you to pay. Maybe you can still catch the speech on cnn.com?

paying taxes is not a reason, just an example of goverment forcing you to do something. It has already been happening for centuries. So it's nothing radically new.



Man, this country is fucking stupid.

I agree 10000000% :tu

[to21]

When will president Obama and the demonrats stop lying?Ahhh..I guess you're waiting for the US to find weapons of mass destructions also huh?

[hater]

Ahhh..I guess you're waiting for the US to find weapons of mass destructions also huh?

:lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

you obviously didnt listen to the speech :rolleyes. therein are the reasons why fed wants to force you to pay. Maybe you can still catch the speech on cnn.com?


So what? The feds always have things they want to do with our money.





paying taxes is not a reason, just an example of goverment forcing you to do something. It has already been happening for centuries. So it's nothing radically new.



Yes, the government forces you to do things. Maybe it can't force you to do everything. Unless you, like Friedman, want to lick some Chicom boots.

[hater]

So what? The feds always have things they want to do with our money.





Yes, the government forces you to do things. Maybe it can't force you to do everything. Unless you, like Friedman, want to lick some Chicom boots.

I agree with you there. way to go off topic :tu

[Yonivore]

”Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.”
So, if his Health Care ... Aaagh! Health Insurance … wait, which is it? … let’s go with Health Insurance today; so, if his Health Insurance Reform Plan isn’t enacted can we expect he’ll still tackle the “waste and inefficiency” in Medicare and Medicaid? Or, will he keep it in there, out of spite?

Seriously, he’s been in office for eight months, what has he done about the “waste and inefficiency” so far?

[sam1617]

My thing, if all of these things are so important why do they have to be in this one gigantic bill? Fix Medicare and medicaid. Everyone agrees it needs it. You can likely get it passed with ease.

Then go on and fix other things that people agree on.

Then after all that, life will have gotten better but if its still not enough, then start going after the stuff that is hard to pass.

It seems like that would be a far more productive and efficient solution...

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, if his Health Care ... Aaagh! Health Insurance … wait, which is it? … let’s go with Health Insurance today; so, if his Health Insurance Reform Plan isn’t enacted can we expect he’ll still tackle the “waste and inefficiency” in Medicare and Medicaid? Or, will he keep it in there, out of spite?

Seriously, he’s been in office for eight months, what has he done about the “waste and inefficiency” so far?

There's a reason why America rejected your kind of politics..

[Yonivore]

Well, it looks like the President got results!

CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/10/cnn-poll-double-digit-post-speech-jump-for-obama-plan/)

Oh wait! Nevermind, we oversampled Democrats...


The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.
Let me see...that would bring Democrats that should have been polled down to what? 35-37? And Republicans up to what? 26-28? Nah, that wouldn't have made a difference...

[Yonivore]

There's a reason why America rejected your kind of politics..
And now, they're regretting it.

By the way, America rejected McCain's politics and those aren't mine.

[nuclearfm]

And now, they're regretting it.

By the way, America rejected McCain's politics and those aren't mine.

America was largely indifferent to McCain. Sarah Palin was a different story. She rallied up the morons and scared any sane minds left. I voted for McCain in the New Hampshire primary, that was the end of it.