100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Address to the Congress amazing speech | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Wed 09/09/09 09:41 PM
|
|
Ooops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is one fact. The little brown squirrel and his handlers did write a fair speech. It doesn’t address any of the real problems with health care. One such problem, only American drug Companies develop new drugs in the world then other countries set prices for what they will pay. Americans have to subsidize the world Little brown squirrel? WT? 
Thanks, Quiet. I wasn't sure as to what he was talking about. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Obama had a little brown squirrel sitting on his shoulder or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Obama had a little brown squirrel sitting on his shoulder or something I really need to watch that speech tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Obama had a little brown squirrel sitting on his shoulder or something LOL no he didn't. I believe it was a derrogatory remark of some kind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know
it was spose to be some kind of racial slur I think but it was more fun to make fun of it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11 
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually think mandatory health insurance is JUST as logical as mandatory auto insurance. When options are added , its more freedom for the consumer not less. My mom worked in government and our family had EXCELLENT coverage. Every american deserves that option. I say push forward. The idea that a large pool of consumers can pull together to buy into a greatly reduced rate of insurance is absolutely true and makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Wed 09/09/09 10:35 PM
|
|
I actually think mandatory health insurance is JUST as logical as mandatory auto insurance. When options are added , its more freedom for the consumer not less. My mom worked in government and our family had EXCELLENT coverage. Every american deserves that option. I say push forward. The idea that a large pool of consumers can pull together to buy into a greatly reduced rate of insurance is absolutely true and makes sense. yanno I got into argument with someone yesterday over that exact thing I dont have a problem with mandatory health insurance the problem I see here is The Clintons tried to put together a health care package and then presented it to Congress. The Senators and Representatives got pissy about not being involved in it's creation and shot it down Obama tried to take that lesson and gave the whole thing to Congress. and Congress is loading it down with all kinds of pet projects (like they always do). They are turning it into a bureaucratic red tape mess He should have gone kinda halfway and gave em a framework to build on instead of just letting them run with it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly heard nothing new. It was all the same old talking points that he's said before compiled into one speech. I really want to see a debate about this between him and a prominent opponent from the Republicans. He's never given any real details or done anything but regurgitate the same old lines... I want him to really defend this plan, not just try to sell it. Would it not be fun to watch a debate between him and Dr. Paul on this issue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually think mandatory health insurance is JUST as logical as mandatory auto insurance. When options are added , its more freedom for the consumer not less. My mom worked in government and our family had EXCELLENT coverage. Every american deserves that option. I say push forward. The idea that a large pool of consumers can pull together to buy into a greatly reduced rate of insurance is absolutely true and makes sense. yanno I got into argument with someone yesterday over that exact thing I dont have a problem with mandatory health insurance the problem I see here is The Clintons tried to put together a health care package and then presented it to Congress. The Senators and Representatives got pissy about not being involved in it's creation and shot it down Obama tried to take that lesson and gave the whole thing to Congress. and Congress is loading it down with all kinds of pet projects (like they always do). They are turning it into a bureaucratic red tape mess He should have gone kinda halfway and gave em a framework to build on instead of just letting them run with it In an interview today Obama admitted something to that affect. I do hope they work together and get this over with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" I am getting tired here so briefly I was blaming our government for not acting properly before 9/11, I don't care who the president was or who the rest of the government was at the time. They were lax and it cost us many lives. As for your list, lots of speculation there and personal agenda. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it can still be done successfully around and through everything you listed there. We are capable of this feat, it is a doable thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" You sir, are the man... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 09/10/09 07:33 AM
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" I am getting tired here so briefly I was blaming our government for not acting properly before 9/11, I don't care who the president was or who the rest of the government was at the time. They were lax and it cost us many lives. As for your list, lots of speculation there and personal agenda. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it can still be done successfully around and through everything you listed there. We are capable of this feat, it is a doable thing. You obviously have no grasp on business or economics and without it, there is no way I can convince you otherwise. There is no way this plan can succeed in providing the same quality of care the majority of our citizens currently enjoy for anywhere near the same cost. If you can see personal agenda in there, I'd like it to be pointed out. All that is is fact. Also, please tell me what is speculation that is not based on experience with our own government. notice there is no reference to any other nation or system in my post (because we cannot compare ourselves to canada, france, or anyone else for that matter as it's all apples to oranges) And thank you drivin .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quality care? You must not live in las vegas...lol
Doctors are giving more drugs, receiving more kickbacks, and less helpful than ever before. IF there is a plan to make care better, Im all for it. IF there is a plan to make care cheaper, Im all for that too. But barring making it better, Im fine with making it cheaper. Nothing more frustrating than paying half a weeks salary just for some doctor to SEE you and the other half because he takes five minutes to do a drive by chat in your room and tell you what isn't wrong with you instead of explaining what is. This has happened three of the last four doctors visits I have been on. Quick to take your money, not so quick to actually take the time to give a damn. Medical OVERHAUL,,,please hurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And are we that special that there is really no other country we can compare ourselves to? wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we have more squirrels to worry about
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just watching the Republican response to his speech. Obama needs to stop being nice to the Republicans and use his Democratic advantage and get er done as far as I am concerned. He is trying too damn hard to bring a group in that cannot be brought in. Just do it, man. And they talked of their form of healthcare reform and it is basically nothing new. Nothing at all. They do not want to change it. Their only defense is to put a price on life. They are saying that the cost of saving lives is too much. It is actually less than the war in Iraq and that saved how many lives? Is still saving how many lives? Sheesh, just get it worked out and passed already. He doesn't need the Republicans. He is much too nice in my opinion. I am not a liberal, nor am I democrat, nor am I anything they have listed. So keep your rightwing rhetoric that means absolutely nothing because you wouldn't even know a liberal or socialist if you saw one and it bite you in the ***. I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I guess people need to reclassify this duck then don't they...lol I am unaffilitated. So I am not even an Independent...lol Do me a favor then: Name one, just one economically conservative principle you agree with. And then explain to me why this healthcare plan will not fail. I actually participated in Welfare Reform which made it impossible to lay around and get welfare, economically fiscally conservative ideal done under Clinton. I believe in regulation on all government run programs that limit the clients who can recieve the benefits. I am never prejudice towards them and call them lazy or blame them for the life situation ( which seems to be a republican/conservative thing to do)that got them on benefits. But I believe in the oversight which is fiscally conservative. I can name more but I will leave it at that. As for the healthcare reform bills and suggestions being addressed now. The projections cannot even be close to accurate so the people doing them are being very pessimistic on the costs and results. This health care reform can be done and should be. We may have to adjust it again in the future since it will be new but it will still work. Look back and see how pessimistically they projected the banking collapse, look back at the housing bubble, look at the pessimism on the stock market projections, look at the Y2K fiasco, etc... and so on. They have been pessimistically projecting crap, and it ends up being crap, for the most part, all my life. I think the only things that were not projected correctly were the gas shortage of the 70s and that damn 9/11, which could have been prevented if they would have only examined it and got really pessimistic over the intel. Hell they did more work trying to make Obama some evil figure than they did protecting us before and on 9/11
any welfare is a socially liberal stance. reform just makes you slightly less liberal. i know you support welfare in many cases. care to try for another? also, are you actually blaming a democratic administration for 9/11? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. As for reasons this program will fail: 1. Supply shortage. in short, increase demand while supply remains, you get a price increase. artificially limit the price by government intervention (through a "public option" included) and you create a ceiling. price ceiling = supply shortage. 2. Lack of providers. Right now, doctors are loaded. yes, the uninsured still get care, but only at ERs. We're talking a 15% increase in usage of the preventative care system. I'm pretty sure the number of physicians is not going to increase 15% 3. Taxation. I'm told this program will not increase our debt one single dime. i don't believe it. however, in an attempt to make it happen, taxes will naturally rise. there is no other way to do it. taxing those that receive benefits already will lessen household income. that will have all kinds of fun ripple effects across the economy. so will taxing businesses as that cuts their funds as well. kiss a few jobs goodbye there for the low-level corporate employee. hope his buddies enjoy their care. 4. It's been proven time and time again the government has not been able to sustain any kind of program of this nature, even on a small scale, efficiently. Medicare anyone? Social Security? Medicaid? Every government budget for the last several decades has run into the red, moreso than planned. Remember cash for clunkers recently? it was expected to last 2-3 months and instead lasted 2-3 weeks. Then the additional 2 billion was to last until labor day but still ran out a week and a half early. The government accountants are never right. 5. The government does not have to make a profit. Furthermore, the government can't make a profit by it's nature. That means any public option will have a severe unfair advantage over any public plan that needs to make a profit, and even those that do not have to make a profit like Kaiser Permanente. While I'm told the plan will be self-sustaining, I was also told there were WMDs in Iraq and that if we didn't spend this $787B that the unemployment would rise over 8% and the economy would go into a tailspin. They still haven't dished out 15% of it and we're still here. Also, no WMDs. The government has a bad habit of saying what's pretty and it not being true. 6. A lack of reform. There are problems with the system... duh. any idiot with a third grade education can see that. however, we should not be throwing money at the system without taking care of the symptoms that put us in this place to begin with. start with tort reform. you lose an arm when they save your life. So what? Is that arm really worth 10 million dollars? absolutely not. you may lose out in a a couple million in wages over your lifetime and add another 50% for the inconvenience, but you're still far, far less than what juries have made standard practice. fraud and malpractice insurance has made the costs of the system skyrocket. fix the problems that exist now before wasting all this money on a broken system. The end (coverage for all) does not justify the means (billions and billions wasted) there are my brief summaries of my arguments. if you disagree, please explain holes in my logic and post a little more than "that's not true" or "you're wrong" I am getting tired here so briefly I was blaming our government for not acting properly before 9/11, I don't care who the president was or who the rest of the government was at the time. They were lax and it cost us many lives. As for your list, lots of speculation there and personal agenda. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it can still be done successfully around and through everything you listed there. We are capable of this feat, it is a doable thing. You obviously have no grasp on business or economics and without it, there is no way I can convince you otherwise. There is no way this plan can succeed in providing the same quality of care the majority of our citizens currently enjoy for anywhere near the same cost. If you can see personal agenda in there, I'd like it to be pointed out. All that is is fact. Also, please tell me what is speculation that is not based on experience with our own government. notice there is no reference to any other nation or system in my post (because we cannot compare ourselves to canada, france, or anyone else for that matter as it's all apples to oranges) And thank you drivin .
No, but you know what I do have? I have the confidence in this government to do what it says it is going to do. No matter what problems arise and no matter how many nay sayers we have, like you, we can do this and should do this. Our government has many faults, yes it does but it also runs this country daily and we are not a third world nation. When we ride or walk down the street, no matter where it is in this country we can see the success of this government and the people it governs. So no matter how many fearmongering points you put out there trying to make it fail before it is ever attempted, I say it can be done regardless and should be done. So I will back it to be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Republicans just keep saying, "NO", to anything that Obama wants to do. But....they offer no solutions!!!! They are not helping the situation! I just saw where Obama was called a liar in front of the world when Obama said that illegals wouldn't be covered. These are the people that he's working with?  They are making themselves look even more stupid with their actions and non-actions, IMO.
Winx did you hear that someone yelling in very loudly (did he yell "Liar"? ) , while the speech and everybody was shaking his heads? I can't believe the immaturity in the EFFIN Congress!!! I thought this is the most serious place of all in USA with the most serious people the USA can muster to deal with the most serious issues, which has a worldwide effect. I just can't f...ing believe it!! 
There was a plus to him yelling that. It made everybody's attention go to that part of the speech so everybody could hear Obama talk about illegals not receiving free health care.
Ironic too - Wilson's opponent received 3,000 political campaign contributions last night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quality care? You must not live in las vegas...lol Doctors are giving more drugs, receiving more kickbacks, and less helpful than ever before. IF there is a plan to make care better, Im all for it. IF there is a plan to make care cheaper, Im all for that too. But barring making it better, Im fine with making it cheaper. Nothing more frustrating than paying half a weeks salary just for some doctor to SEE you and the other half because he takes five minutes to do a drive by chat in your room and tell you what isn't wrong with you instead of explaining what is. This has happened three of the last four doctors visits I have been on. Quick to take your money, not so quick to actually take the time to give a damn. Medical OVERHAUL,,,please hurry I think you will find it rather rare that the doctors themselves walk away with what they charged you. Yes, some do exploit the system, and as a result, they are adding to an already big problem. Doctors, of course, are going to make above the median income. This is only natural as they average 12 years, in preparation for their career. They also accumulate over $200,000 in student loans. Not to mention some pay six figures a year in malpractice insurance to keep a sue-hungry population happy. Then, if those "doctors" are in fact the ones charging you, it means they have some sort of private practice. This means they have a staff to pay, as well as benefits for this staff. Anyhow, i don't think the system needs a complete overhaul. The foundation of our system USED to be the best in the world, before it was tampered with. Our problem, can be summed up by lack of efficiency. In order to get the best possible care, for the best price, the system must be efficient. Perhaps more study should be put into where the inefficiencies are before we go around and dismantle a whole system and spend trillions. |
|
|
|
|
