Why do you give a about him giving a ? Is posting on ST.com going to change anything? Does being pissed off about you can't change really worth it?
Anyways, theoretically we live in a democratic nation, so you really can change the too, so I'm not sure why you wrote that...
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
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
he also apologized, when obama asserted his position, right after
Boy this is dillusional. He doesn't have to say 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.
Why are you here?
not impossible have some kids get on welfare have some more get more money
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.
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..
like a communist!
Whatta you talking about mother ers couldn't even feed themselves.
But they starved very efficiently.
I grant you that.
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.
taxes, it's a communist belief!
Good morning! I'll leave you with a particularly biting analysis of Obama's speech...
Obama's Speech: Did It Help Him?
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:
Then, a few minutes later:Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.
By far the biggest scaremonger on this issue has been Obama himself.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.
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.Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
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:
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]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.
How does that work? Better coverage for more people at less cost. Does anyone actually believe that is possible? I don't think so.[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.
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:
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?This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.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.
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.
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.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.
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.[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.
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.
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."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.
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.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.
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."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.
This seems to me to be the most critical moment in Obama's speech:
In fact, Obama and Congressional Democrats have zero interest in increasing choice and compe ion. 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. Compe ion is hard. But if Obama really wanted to expand "choice and compe ion" 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 compe ion."My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and compe ion. 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 compe ion, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.
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?Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business.
President Obama talked about the "public option" and assured listeners that it would not be subsidized by the government:
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 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.
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.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.
I should hope not, since there isn't any Medicare trust fund, just like there isn't any Social Security trust fund.[N]ot a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for 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?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.
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.
Ha! A fan of cyberpunk, WH23?
^^^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.
Probably the same thing that happens to people without car insurance.
They take away your license eventually. How does that work with your life?
at copying and pasting.
Death panel!
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?
Last I checked, health care costs was like 4 trillion bucks a year total. So, is long term like 200 years?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.
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 s game and actually codify and regulate what is already happening.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote