http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090816/pl_politico/26158
"President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they're prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that's what's needed to strike a compromise on Obama's top legislative priority.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was "not the essential element" of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was "just one sliver" of the debate."
They are starting to downplay what was once considered a cornerstone of reform. You rabid libs should be angry as all hell with this administration.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2009, 08:04:48 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090816/pl_politico/26158
"President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they're prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that's what's needed to strike a compromise on Obama's top legislative priority.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was "not the essential element" of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was "just one sliver" of the debate."
They are starting to downplay what was once considered a cornerstone of reform. You rabid libs should be angry as all hell with this administration.
If healthcare reform doesn't get done and proper, I think EVERYONE should be angry as all hell.
What if a republican had insisted on the public option? Would the right wing wankers be screaming 'socialism' and cries of 'Nazi' abound? It makes one wonder, doesn't it.
I never though the public option should hold up reform, but now it appears the democratic congress has no spine.
Quote from: Hoss on August 17, 2009, 08:41:49 AM
What if a republican had insisted on the public option? Would the right wing wankers be screaming 'socialism' and cries of 'Nazi' abound? It makes one wonder, doesn't it.
That's not the way it went down, so why make up hypotheticals on it? The Democrats had enough muscle to make it happen if they stuck together. That tells you how bad it is if they weren't willing to go party line on it like the lemming Repuglicans did on virtually every measure GWB sent them.
I simply have not digested it enough yet to figure out if it's Dims scared of losing their jobs in '10 or if they really do believe the public option is a steaming pile.
It is a sad thread that almost every post on this thread is partisan in nature...
Face it, this is a monumental paradigm shift is the lives of every American. What made any of you think it was going to be tea and roses? It encompasses every aspect of our belief political system. From government intervention, to protecting the poor, to free-market beliefs and even upsetting the afraid of change, this is a doozy.
Republicans are proud of the rich and Democrats are ashamed of the poor, and they are both right.
This should be about fixing a broken health insurance industry and finding ways to offer better care for the millions who cost us even more today.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 17, 2009, 10:59:54 AM
It is a sad thread that almost every post on this thread is partisan in nature...
Face it, this is a monumental paradigm shift is the lives of every American. What made any of you think it was going to be tea and roses? It encompasses every aspect of our belief political system. From government intervention, to protecting the poor, to free-market beliefs and even upsetting the afraid of change, this is a doozy.
Republicans are proud of the rich and Democrats are ashamed of the poor, and they are both right.
This should be about fixing a broken health insurance industry and finding ways to offer better care for the millions who cost us even more today.
Probably one of the most intelligent and succinct posts at TNF. Agree 100%.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 17, 2009, 10:59:54 AM
It is a sad thread that almost every post on this thread is partisan in nature...
Face it, this is a monumental paradigm shift is the lives of every American. What made any of you think it was going to be tea and roses? It encompasses every aspect of our belief political system. From government intervention, to protecting the poor, to free-market beliefs and even upsetting the afraid of change, this is a doozy.
Republicans are proud of the rich and Democrats are ashamed of the poor, and they are both right.
This should be about fixing a broken health insurance industry and finding ways to offer better care for the millions who cost us even more today.
Thumbs up..
+1 Michael.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/99008/original.jpg)
Check out the tall guy's sign.
More. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/the-funniest-signs-from-t_n_260838.html
I like this one too. :)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3812964280_7ded4ffb86.jpg)
Quote from: kylieosu on August 17, 2009, 03:35:03 PM
I like this one too. :)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3812964280_7ded4ffb86.jpg)
Now that's ONE I can agree with. He'd be my hero if he could bring back arrested development AND get Allie McBeal onto DVD. ;)
Compromising our country....not what we voted for....
This fall: In loving tribute to the political compromise that will deny working people a public option in health insurance........
Let's dismantle all the public institutions of higher education in this country.
Go TU, ORU, and OCU!!! ;D
/snark.
Quote from: USRufnex on August 17, 2009, 10:15:15 PM
This fall: In loving tribute to the political compromise that will deny working people a public option in health insurance........
Let's dismantle all the public institutions of higher education in this country.
Go TU, ORU, and OCU!!! ;D
/snark.
This fall: In loving tribute to the political compromise that will deny working people a public option in health insurance
paid for by those evil rich people who became rich not by working but through obvious amoral means or inheritance........
There, fixed it.
Quote from: guido911 on August 17, 2009, 11:11:15 PM
This fall: In loving tribute to the political compromise that will deny working people a public option in health insurance paid for by those evil rich people who became rich not by working but through obvious amoral means or inheritance........
There, fixed it.
And all this time the devil's advocate was thinking it would be paid for through making the system more efficient.
There goes Guido....one, not recognizing the problem and two, playing the renegade. Guido, do you receive government help?
Quote from: guido911 on August 17, 2009, 11:11:15 PM
This fall: In loving tribute to the political compromise that will deny working people a public option in health insurance paid for by those evil rich people who became rich not by working but through obvious amoral means or inheritance........
There, fixed it.
You're so very right. We'll cap your taxes in perpetuity because of your amazing success. You've worked so hard and been so virtuous that you deserve a permanent tax vacation!
Quote from: we vs us on August 18, 2009, 07:15:59 AM
You're so very right. We'll cap your taxes in perpetuity because of your amazing success. You've worked so hard and been so virtuous that you deserve a permanent tax vacation!
And we will allow the likes of you to pay little taxes in perpetuity because you chose to pursue a path of mediocrity or failure.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2009, 09:37:55 AM
And we will allow the likes of you to pay little taxes in perpetuity because you chose to pursue a path of mediocrity or failure.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, Gweed..... but this is nothing new.... except that taxes on the rich are much lower nowadays than they were back in Fremont, New Hampshire in 1968.... 1968 top tax bracket = 75.25%, Obama's tax on the rich = 39.6%
"...a path of mediocrity or failure?"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shaggs
"The Shaggs. Better than the Beatles -- even today."Frank Zappa(http://www.shaggs.com/images/potw_front_small.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxPsXPCR5MU&NR=1
Oh, the rich people want what the poor people's got
And the poor people want what the rich people's got
And the skinny people want what the fat people's got
And the fat people want what the skinny people's got
You can never please anybody in this world
The short people want what the tall people's got
And the tall people want what the short people's got
The little kids want what the big kid's got
And the big kids want what the little kid's gotAnd my personal favorite....
The Shaggs "My Pal Foot Foot"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN9UT2zF8c8
It's not the rich vs. not-so-rich thing in this thread. It's the tired "working people" get screwed screed you and others spout off. Believe it or not, there are "rich" people that work in this country, some of them a helluva lot harder than some of those "working people" you champion. And I am going to let you in on a little secret, some of these "working people" actually are working because of rich people.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2009, 06:10:00 PM
It's not the rich vs. not-so-rich thing in this thread. It's the tired "working people" get screwed screed you and others spout off. Believe it or not, there are "rich" people that work in this country, some of them a helluva lot harder than some of those "working people" you champion. And I am going to let you in on a little secret, some of these "working people" actually are working because of rich people.
Republican Family Values:
Narcissism, Greed, Exploitation, Fraud, Ignorance, Hypocrisy, Self-Righteousness.
Quote from: FOTD on August 18, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
Republican Family Values:
Narcissism, Greed, Exploitation, Fraud, Ignorance, Hypocrisy, Self-Righteousness.
I didn't know you were a registered Republijerk, er Repiglican, er Repug
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2009, 06:10:00 PM
It's not the rich vs. not-so-rich thing in this thread. It's the tired "working people" get screwed screed you and others spout off. Believe it or not, there are "rich" people that work in this country, some of them a helluva lot harder than some of those "working people" you champion. And I am going to let you in on a little secret, some of these "working people" actually are working because of rich people.
I generally like the
working rich.
(more on that later)....
But I am not of fan of entrenched wealth.... I am no fan of entrenched welfare either.... and I am not a fan of the entrenched working poor.... the working poor I'd rather champion are the ones who are there temporarily.
When minimum wage is frozen for 8 years in the 80s and for 10 years over this past decade..... you are: SCREWING THE WORKING POOR.
When healthcare costs are spiraling out of control and there is no relief or reform on the horizon..... you are: SCREWING THE WORKING POOR.
Conversely, when minimum wage is increased from $5.15 per hour in 2007 to $7.25 in 2009, it hurts small businesses more than if those increases were spread out more evenly using a COLA every couple of years or so...... and heaven forbid a small business try to honestly cover its employees using self-insurance groups these days..... Are you a self-employed small business entrepreneur without a trust-fund? Well, if you want reasonable healthcare benefits to cover you and your wife and kids, I would suggest getting an extra job working part-time at Starbucks....
At the risk of jeopardizing my status as WEALTH HATER AND CLASS WARFARE NINJA on this site because I do not support a flat-tax...... I personally would much rather pay a ten cent tax on every $3 bag of chips and five cents on every two-liter of pop to cover the costs of healthcare reform than levy a Pelosi-style tax on millionaires.....
But taxing junk food ain't gonna happen anytime soon, despite the fact we already tax the wazoo out of liquor and cigarettes..... all hail Frito-Lay! :-*
Who do I blame for this irresponsible tax-the-rich hysteria?
I blame the high priests and priestesses of Reaganomics and dogmatic Grover Nordquist zealots.... they've successfully backed liberal and moderate dems and moderate conservatives into a corner..... any compromise that ever raises people's taxes in any way, shape or form has now become such a rallying cry and creates such a hysteria, that we no longer raise taxes in times of war or economic upheaval....
I mean, what if T. Boone Pickens could only afford $180 million to give to the OSU football program? What if TU could only raise $15 million to renovate Skelly Stadium? What if the new music school at my alma mater didn't get quite as much money from Wanda Bass after she died? A few less Steinways?.... a less expensive Atrium?... Sorry, but I don't think we're talking about the establishment of a pinko-commie regime if the federal gubmint simply tries to pay its bills by taxing windfall profits and high end estate/inheritance....
So, the days of tax-and-spend liberals and deficit-hawk conservatives are over... effectively replaced by spend-and-spend conservatives and tax-the-rich-and-spend liberals....
The only time Republicans are interested in curbing the federal deficit is: WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN POWER.----You see, I want Tulsa to have a Major League Soccer team. I believe we have a better fanbase and would be a a better potential market for MLS than Denver, KC and Frisco, TX...
But MLS has become a billionaires club... multi-millionaires need not apply.
Portland, Oregon will be getting an MLS team in 2011. They will be converting PG&E Park to soccer but will be losing their AAA ballclub to..... Jenks.... er, uh.... Beaverton. The same multi-millionaire who owns Portland's AAA baseball team also owns Portland's USL-1 soccer team....
His name: Merritt Paulson. You might have heard of his... cough, cough..... dad.... cough, cough... ----Now, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret..... if I want to lobby the county to see if a USL-1 team could play at the old Driller Park next summer or 2011, how do you think I'm gonna find the "local investors" to support such a venture?
A covered dish dinner for the working poor at the Wagoner Elks Lodge? Forget about it.
A kegger at D-fest? Nope. Try again.
A soiree for "interested parties" at 320 S Boston?-- complete with a soccer ball made of caviar and cream cheese or goat cheese as
piece de resistance? Getting warmer....
But alas, my schmoozing skills are rusty, and my stylish olive green double breasted suit and Italian tie are too dated to use anymore..... How can I ever get my schmoozing mojo back?.......
(RecycleMichael to the white courtesy phone please.... RM to the white courtesy phone.....) ;D
$$$ makes the world go around.
/rant.
Quote from: USRufnex on August 21, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
I generally like the working rich. (more on that later)....
At the risk of jeopardizing my status as WEALTH HATER AND CLASS WARFARE NINJA on this site because I do not support a flat-tax...... I personally would much rather pay a ten cent tax on every $3 bag of chips and five cents on every two-liter of pop to cover the costs of healthcare reform than levy a Pelosi-style tax on millionaires.....
You're screwed with this crowd
now
Quote from: Conan71 on August 21, 2009, 12:26:12 PM
You're screwed with this crowd now
LOL!
Joe Scarborough Is Shocked, Yet Awed by Single-Payer Logic
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/464837/joe_scarborough_is_shocked_yet_awed_by_single_payer_logic
"Well, he didn't use those exact words, but Joe did seem to finally get that America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of healthcare in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people--without providing any actual healthcare whatsoever.
"Why are we paying profits for insurance companies?" Weiner asked Scarborough. "Why are we paying overhead for insurance companies? Why," he asked, bringing it all home, "are we paying for their TV commercials?"
Moron Joe was Shocked! Shocked to find logic in the room!
This will not be POTUS OBAMA's Waterloo.
Ruf....put me down. Great ideas.
Sometimes the most powerful arguments come in the most unlikely of places.
Roger Ebert's take on health care reform(yes, THAT Roger Ebert).
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/im_safe_on_board_you_can_pull.html
Steny Hoyer believes the public option may have to go:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26335.html
It saddens me that our elected officials must resort to representing their constituents.
It saddens me that our elected officials must resort to representing squeeky wheels and liars and the industries and special interests who finance them.
There. Fixed it.
June 20, 2009
Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Without Public Option, Enthusiasm for Health Care Reform, Especially Among Democrats, Collapses
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/without_public_option_enthusiasm_for_health_care_reform_especially_among_democrats_collapses
Poll Bankrolled By Foes Of Health Care Reform Finds Overwhelming Support For Public Plan
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/poll-bankrolled-by-foes-of-health-care-reform-finds-overwhelming-support-for-public-plan/
August 20, 2009
"Analysts say "Romney care" is basically "Obama care" minus the public option."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/romney.health.care/index.html?eref=rss_latest
"A new NBC News poll shows only 21 percent approve of the Republican Party's handling of health care, while 62 percent disapprove. In contrast, 41 percent approve of Obama's handling of the issue, while 47 percent disapprove."
Quote from: guido911 on August 22, 2009, 09:23:55 AM
It saddens me that our elected officials must resort to representing their constituents.
I believe you are confusing constituents with donors. They are certainly being forced to listen to the latter. Not so much of the former.
After all, most
people want a public option. They don't want to be forced into it, but they want it available should they so choose. Sounds pretty damn American to me. The freedom to choose.
Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2009, 02:25:38 PM
After all, most people want a public option.
I think they really want a reasonably priced option, it doesn't need to be a public option.
One thing these polls don't indicate is how well people understand what a public option entails.
Saying that the majority support such a measure is one thing. Actually grasping what's involved is another.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2009, 10:15:52 AM
One thing these polls don't indicate is how well people understand what a public option entails.
Saying that the majority support such a measure is one thing. Actually grasping what's involved is another.
Okay, so now that the GOP have clarified that a public option means "death counsels" and a "government takeover of healthcare" and "rationing" .....
Since Republicans refuse to support even the most humble of public options, what will members of the GOP do next in response?
A) Support a McCain-style tax on benefits.
B) Support a Massachusetts style program that does little to reduce costs.
C) Support price controls.
D) Trot out their old warhorse-- the magic bullet of "tort reform."
E) None of the above. IOW, support the status quo.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 22, 2009, 10:40:10 PM
I think they really want a reasonably priced option, it doesn't need to be a public option.
Given how competition in the private sector has thus far failed to produce reasonable prices, what do you think will bring costs back to something affordable for most people other than public competition?
The 'private option' has resulted in the siphoning off of 12% or more of our health care dollars just on the health insurance side. Not to mention what they're doing to us through malpractice insurance, which has a cost in most specialties far in excess of actuarial necessity.
I'm getting really mad at the Republicans and their blatant lies regarding the reform plans. If they disagree ideologically, that's fine. Good, even. We should have vigorous discourse on such an important issue. Blatant lies like the "death council" thing are not at all conducive to that, however.
Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
I'm getting really mad at the Republicans and their blatant lies regarding the reform plans. If they disagree ideologically, that's fine. Good, even. We should have vigorous discourse on such an important issue. Blatant lies like the "death council" thing are not at all conducive to that, however.
Nathan,
Why be mad at the GOP? That's just irrational bias to keep from accepting the possibility that there is true dissention amongst the Dems on this.
The Democrats have majorities in the House and Senate. They don't need the GOP for this plan to pass. There's a bunch of Democrats who know a sh!t burger when they smell one and GOP "fear tactics" isn't what's keeping them from jumping on board.
Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
I'm getting really mad at the Republicans and their blatant lies regarding the reform plans.
Aw, well too bad Nate considering you don't seem to give a damn about the blatant lies told by Obama both prior to and after his election. Here's a partial list: transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition, and most blatant that if the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.
Awaiting your righteous indignation over the foregoing...
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2009, 01:35:10 PM
Aw, well too bad Nate considering you don't seem to give a damn about the blatant lies told by Obama both prior to and after his election. Here's a partial list: transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition, and most blatant that if the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.
Awaiting your righteous indignation over the foregoing...
Bad behavior on the part of one party only excuses bad behavior on the part of another party in the mindset of a 6 year old. Most of us develop a more reasonable moral code at some point in our life.
And just so you are aware, one of those things in your list is not like the others. A 'forward looking statement' in the parlance of the securities act. I'll leave it to you to figure out which that is. (You were doing great up to that point, though!)
Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2009, 02:01:49 PM
Bad behavior on the part of one party only excuses bad behavior on the part of another party in the mindset of a 6 year old. Most of us develop a more reasonable moral code at some point in our life.
And just so you are aware, one of those things in your list is not like the others. A 'forward looking statement' in the parlance of the securities act. I'll leave it to you to figure out which that is. (You were doing great up to that point, though!)
Wow. The point I was making flew right over your mature mindset. It was not about excusing bad behavior, it was your rank hypocrisy.
Not sure what "forward looking statement" you are referring to, perhaps the middle class tax increase? Here is Obama during the campaign:
Did you hear that? Now, how are we funding SCHIP? Why, with a tax increase on tobacco, which I can fairly presume will be paid by those making less than $250K. Here is a Gallup poll which proves my point and then some:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Wow. The point I was making flew right over your mature mindset. It was not about excusing bad behavior, it was your rank hypocrisy.
Not sure what "forward looking statement" you are referring to, perhaps the middle class tax increase? Here is Obama during the campaign:
Did you hear that? Now, how are we funding SCHIP? Why, with a tax increase on tobacco, which I can fairly presume will be paid by those making less than $250K. Here is a Gallup poll which proves my point and then some:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/
My hypocrisy? I am not Barack Obama, if you hadn't noticed.
As far as the forward looking statement, I would think someone in your profession would have grasped that I was referring to the last of the items in your list. The one regarding predictions of the future where that future is not directly controlled by the person making the predictions.
Lastly, I would also think that you, as an attorney, would be capable of understanding the difference between income and excise taxes. At a minimum, one is purely voluntary, while the other is mandatory. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2009, 01:35:10 PM
Aw, well too bad Nate considering you don't seem to give a damn about the blatant lies told by Obama both prior to and after his election. Here's a partial list: transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition, and most blatant that if the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.
Awaiting your righteous indignation over the foregoing...
I'll do it. Gweed's a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE....
Blatant lies? Typical partisan doublespeak from someone who has DESPISED Obama from day one....
Per usual, the doe-doe decides that campaign promises that have gone unfulfilled makes President Obama a liar. If Obama is able to fulfill a majority of his promises, Obama voters should be happy, and independents will have to decide whether he's fulfilled enough of them to warrant a second term...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
(http://tampabay.com/universal/politifact/images/mainquote-obama-mug.gif)
The Obameter Scorecard
* Promise Kept 35
* Compromise 11
* Promise Broken 7
* Stalled 12
* In the Works 79
* No Action 372Using Guido's criteria, Ronald Reagan was a big fat hairy LIAR.....
And looking at many of Greed's previous posts (oops, typo), using his own criteria makes him a liar too.
In 1980, Guido's political MESSIAH, Ronald Reagan, promised a balanced budget within three years (he said this would be "the beginning of the end of inflation").
Ronald Reagan promised to ABOLISH the Dept. of Education.
Ronald Reagan promised to create a global defense system.
And then there was Iran-Contra.... http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/04/world/arms-to-iran-weren-t-for-hostages-reagan-says.html
Reagan loved to rail on-and-on ad infinitum about "special interests" in Washington... Here's Reagan's legacy...
A Multitude of Lobbyists With Reagan Tieshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29703-2004Jun9.html
And it's hardly fair to call Obama a liar, when on the very same issues the rabid right insists he's a big fat hairy liar... he's made progress over the previous administration's policies....
transparency? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/melber
no lobbyists in his administration? http://www.newsweek.com/id/194652
accept public finance to campaign? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/politics/20obama.html
no signing statements? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html
---recognize Armenian genocide? (Bush's 2/2000 campaign promise) http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=3
recognize Armenian genocide? (Obama) http://yandunts.blogspot.com/2009/05/president-obama-in-turkey-raises.html
***"If the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%?"
The gweed-spinster talks like Barack Obama is supposed to be Miss Cleo..... back in my day, Ronald Reagan gave this country double-digit unemployement for month after month after month after month.... when the big tax cuts offered by Reaganomics was supposed to spur employers to hire MORE workers...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/stimulus-history-lesson/
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/reaganlag.png)
And Ronald Reagan was so busy breaking his campaign promises when we had double-digit unemployement that he RAISED TAXES.... he had an approval rating of 35% at one point in his first term... but Reagan didn't have to deal with a 24-hour cable news cycle.... and nutjob bloggers....
Guido gets an "F" in Chattering Class 101.
Quote from: USRufnex on August 23, 2009, 06:19:04 PM
I'll do it. Gweed's a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE....
Blatant lies? Typical partisan doublespeak from someone who has DESPISED Obama from day one....
What does my dislike of Obama have to do with the fact that he is a liar? Nothing. BTW, are you suggesting that Obama was truthful about accepting public finance? He was truthful about lobbyists not being in his administration? Like your links (which in large part acknowledge the lie but try to minimize its significance) and your analysis. Its a matter of degree of the lie.
For your edification as to what Obama ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed to news prints' reflection/distortion, as to several of these issues raised in this thread:
LOBBYISTS:
SIGNING STATEMENTS:
Obama has issued five signing statements to date, any idea the number Bush had issued at this point of his presidency?
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm#a2001
PUBLIC FINANCE:
I don't think anything more needs to be said about this one.
TRANSPARENCY:
Well, how's that working out:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obamas_fiveday_rule_broken_aga.html
As for your attack on Reagan, are you serious? Reagan was a bad president on the economy?
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0165_Reagans_accomplishme.html
Noticed you left off of your list of Reagan failures the end of the cold war.
USRUF has once again brought a knife to a gun fight. You newbies out there, remember this thread if you are thinking about taking Nate and this guy seriously.
Gweed,
Here's your new avatar
(http://img.printfection.com/14/45235/MJhg9.jpg)
Ruf just loves to drop the LIAR card. You must have hit a soft spot.
Ruf, I've never heard an objective thing about Obama come out of your mouth. From the time you were in Chicago and he was a community organizer then went to the state legislature, etc. you've been infatuated with everything the man has done. If anyone is even slightly critical or holds him to the same standard Democrats held Bush II to, you go off on them and resort to calling people liars. The revisionist Reagan legacy you and others like you keep spewing is a total laugh riot. Talk about partisan hacks. Sheesh.
If you want to sit around and play "My guy is better than yours" make sure he really is any better or more accurate in fulfilling campaign promises. I have a feeling if McCain had unkept promises, broken promises or unfulfilled promises your response would be: LIAR!!!!
Hugs & kisses,
Conan
You might be a bit taken with yourself and your arguments. I think you lost hands down. I lived through Reagan and his tax cuts, unemployment, Beirut barracks bombing and cold war policies. He sucked. No one but die hard Republicans give him credit for "winning the cold war".
Your arguments are partisanship and you lose credibility with your hatred of the president.
Quote from: waterboy on August 23, 2009, 09:18:43 PM
You might be a bit taken with yourself and your arguments. I think you lost hands down. I lived through Reagan and his tax cuts, unemployment, Beirut barracks bombing and cold war policies. He sucked. No one but die hard Republicans give him credit for "winning the cold war".
Your arguments are partisanship and you lose credibility with your hatred of the president.
Try again Waterboy. President Reagan, Cap Weinberger and George Schultz were the masters of detente`.
The rough patch our region went through in the 1980's had little to zilch to do with Reagan's economics or tax cuts. There was a never-ending orgy of higher and higher interest rates from the Carter years which finally broke the back of the average homeowner and businessman, a borrowing binge based on oil approaching $40 a barrel, and some seriously greedy and dishonest bankers willing to roll the dice and bankroll speculative life-styles.
Reagan inherited a very full plate. Can you honestly say with a straight face that America was worse off when Reagan left office than when he took it? Where's your credibility when you spit on President Reagan, a man whom history has objectively shown was a very, very effective President? Who won the Cold War, if it wasn't Reagan?
Without reform, health insurance rates to nearly double in 11 years
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/22/insurance-rates-double/
Insurance rates will rise 94 percent by 2020 if cost-saving reforms to the US health care system aren't enacted, a new study from the Commonwealth Institute finds.
The 90-year-old non-profit health care charity released an analysis of health care costs and forecasts that says employer-sponsored family plans will rise from an average cost of $12,298 in 2008 to $23,842 in 2020.
By contrast, the same coverage would have cost around $9,200 in 2003.
"Across the United States, middle-income individuals and families have been los ing ground as the cost of health insurance continues to rise at a faster rate than incomes," the report states. "Rising employer insurance premiums have forced many working fami lies to trade off increases in their wages just to hold onto their health benefits. The expanding share of health insurance premiums paid by workers themselves has also taken a greater cut out of paychecks."
And you whiny freaks cry out against taxes....families are supposed to work only to buy health insurance, not food, clothing, shelter...nothing more important than than worthless piece of paper to own.
CoCo, stay on topic. Your usual diversionary tactics are rather odd and rather old.
Back on topic FOTD, who's to say that the government can cap these costs? Do we really want the government to subsidize escalating costs when we've got such a huge deficit? If the government could cap medical costs via their vision of reform, at what cost does it come in terms of the American health care worker and all the companies which supply the health care industry.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2009, 10:47:05 PM
Back on topic FOTD, who's to say that the government can cap these costs? OMB Do we really want the government to subsidize escalating costs when we've got such a huge deficit? YES If the government could cap medical costs via their vision of reform, at what cost does it come in terms of the American health care worker and all the companies which supply the health care industry. WHATEVER IT COSTS THEM, TFB
Okay, I'll go off topic again since, when pressed with serious legit questions, some members can't reply with cogent responses. It's obvious he was waiting in the weeds to throw out another of the cartoons from his DNC talking points kit.
"Look little liberals, for only $24.99 you can look like a total imbecile on-line too!"
Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
Given how competition in the private sector has thus far failed to produce reasonable prices, what do you think will bring costs back to something affordable for most people other than public competition?
Maybe for starters, the punitive portion of lawsuits could go to a public charity of the winners choice. I am all for a damaged party to receive compensation for damages. They should not get money for punitive damages any more than I should receive a reward for calling in an incapacitated driver to the police. That might help reduce the cost of malpractice insurance.
This next thought is difficult. All insurance is socialistic. Everyone pays into a pot and the needy get to withdraw. It is a price we pay to cover catastrophic events that may occur. I buy car insurance (in addition to the fact that it is required) to pay for judgements that I could not otherwise afford to pay. I do not buy insurance for normal maintenance, tires, engine belts, etc. Health insurance has become "maintenance insurance" as much as catastrophic event coverage. Part of the blame goes to the greed of the Pharmaceutical companies and I believe partly because if any drug cause damage to anyone, the big rich Pharm companies get their pants sued off so they price their products to cover those events in addition to the so-called development costs. There is no free health coverage. Some one or entity (government/taxpayer) will pay.
In summary, I believe some sort of Tort reform would be a first step to more realistic health coverage costs. Reform brought the small aircraft industry from unavailable at any cost to merely outrageous prices. It could do the medical industry some good.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2009, 11:31:56 PM
Maybe for starters, the punitive portion of lawsuits could go to a public charity of the winners choice. I am all for a damaged party to receive compensation for damages. They should not get money for punitive damages any more than I should receive a reward for calling in an incapacitated driver to the police. That might help reduce the cost of malpractice insurance.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the tort reform drum is a straw man created by the insurance industry and big pharma. I forget the exact number, but less than 1 cent of each health care dollar goes to paying for damage awards. Far, far less even go to punitive damages. (The enormous punitive awards big insurance and big pharma like to tout are almost always drastically reduced before all is said and done)
That particular straw man is easy to fall for however, given the shocking regularity with which the outright lie is repeated in the media.
Now, the argument can be made that fear of malpractice suits causes doctors to order more expensive tests, but I think the evidence points to some doctors doing that for the benefit of their bottom line rather than the benefit of the patient or to ward off malpractice suits.
I'm of the opinion the largest part of the problem is simply the insurers themselves. Between their inordinate overhead, their refusal to work together to simplify the claims submission process, and their premium increases far in excess of actuarial necessity, I'd say they are the largest part of the issue. They get away with it because there is no transparency whatsoever in their operations. Since most of us only pay a small fraction of the premium and nobody but doctors have to deal with the process of submitting claims to hundreds of different insurance companies the problems go largely unnoticed.
Health care is broken not only for the 35 million uninsured, but for everyone in our so-called system.
The only way to rein in private health insurers is to make them entirely optional. I think the best way to do that is a single payer government-run system that essentially expands Medicare to everyone. If someone desires supplemental coverage, they are free to purchase it.
In the alternative, having a viable public insurance plan is about the only other way to force them to solve their problems. I don't think onerous regulation will do the trick. I think competition is the only way, and there is no real competition among health insurers at present. If their choices are streamline or die, they will finally stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution.
I await guido's irrelevant red-baiting Obama references with bated breath. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2009, 10:20:41 PM
Try again Waterboy. President Reagan, Cap Weinberger and George Schultz were the masters of detente`.
The rough patch our region went through in the 1980's had little to zilch to do with Reagan's economics or tax cuts. There was a never-ending orgy of higher and higher interest rates from the Carter years which finally broke the back of the average homeowner and businessman, a borrowing binge based on oil approaching $40 a barrel, and some seriously greedy and dishonest bankers willing to roll the dice and bankroll speculative life-styles.
Reagan inherited a very full plate. Can you honestly say with a straight face that America was worse off when Reagan left office than when he took it? Where's your credibility when you spit on President Reagan, a man whom history has objectively shown was a very, very effective President? Who won the Cold War, if it wasn't Reagan?
You had to be there. My responses would merely veer back off topic. Suffice it to say, objectively historians rate Reagan as an average president who receives more credit in this area than in others. Besides, you guys are firing the heavy guns, I'm just an interested observer.
Quote from: waterboy on August 24, 2009, 06:42:17 AM
You had to be there. My responses would merely veer back off topic. Suffice it to say, objectively historians rate Reagan as an average president who receives more credit in this area than in others. Besides, you guys are firing the heavy guns, I'm just an interested observer.
I was there. So was my family.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2009, 02:30:56 AM
I'm of the opinion the largest part of the problem is simply the insurers themselves. Between their inordinate overhead, their refusal to work together to simplify the claims submission process, and their premium increases far in excess of actuarial necessity, I'd say they are the largest part of the issue. They get away with it because there is no transparency whatsoever in their operations. Since most of us only pay a small fraction of the premium and nobody but doctors have to deal with the process of submitting claims to hundreds of different insurance companies the problems go largely unnoticed.
Health care is broken not only for the 35 million uninsured, but for everyone in our so-called system.
The only way to rein in private health insurers is to make them entirely optional. I think the best way to do that is a single payer government-run system that essentially expands Medicare to everyone. If someone desires supplemental coverage, they are free to purchase it.
In the alternative, having a viable public insurance plan is about the only other way to force them to solve their problems. I don't think onerous regulation will do the trick. I think competition is the only way, and there is no real competition among health insurers at present. If their choices are streamline or die, they will finally stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution.
Next time you have a regular doctor visit or procedure, review your statement from your insurance carrier. You will find a deduction for a pre-negotiated lower rate for services. One other thing you will find is that most providers will accept a 10 to 20% discount if you offer to pay a significant deductible in cash, right away.
IOW, insurance companies do help negotiate lower rates on behalf of their insured. Now whether or not that's causing providers to jack up their rates for services to wind up with a procedure payment they want is beyond me. I'm quite well aware of anecdotal evidence from friends who have no coverage who have negotiated as much as 25% off the stated price of a procedure for offering to pay cash at time of service.
We can have it one way or the other: continue to pay higher premiums to private insurers, or subsidize health services via a government program which will either have to raise revenue (taxes) or increase borrowing (deficit) to stay solvent and provide a competitive arena to keep insurance companies "honest". Neither is an attractive option to me.
The more I see and read of the reform that's proposed. It's got very little to do with capping costs and providing health care to a segment of the population which is supposedly dying without it. It's about cradle-to-grave dependence on the Federal Government. There are very good programs out there already which help those without other means for health insurance. I name-drop this on about a monthly basis: In our state, we have Sooner Care. Do some Googling on it, it's a Medicaid-based program (I do believe) and is a hand-up type system. There's no vacuum of health care for those who really want it or need it.
Here's two stories of interest from the Tulsa World this morning which relate to government health care programs. One states there will be no COLA this coming year for SS recipients, but their Medicare benefit cost will increase. Whoops!
"Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise, as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20090824_13_A8_WSIGOm561175&archive=yes
The other is about the possiblity of Fairfax and Bristow losing their hospitals. Lower Medicare reimbursement (government-provided health care) is cited as one reasons why solvency seems to be a problem for smaller hospitals.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20090824_17_A1_JimClo213658&archive=yes
A critique of the WH's handling of the reform package:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20090824_17_0_WASHIN124635
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 10:34:58 AM
We can have it one way or the other: continue to pay higher premiums to private insurers, or subsidize health services via a government program which will either have to raise revenue (taxes) or increase borrowing (deficit) to stay solvent and provide a competitive arena to keep insurance companies "honest". Neither is an attractive option to me.
So if a health insurance company charges you money it's called a 'premium,' but if a government-run insurance company charges you money it's called a 'tax.' Can't argue with that.
Regarding SoonerCare, that's great if you are a child, blind, disabled, over 65, or pregnant. For males and non-pregnant females, it does not apply. You can thank the 90s Republican Congress and Bill Clinton for that, BTW.
Smaller hospitals close because of lack of use, not because the big, bad government forces them to. It's capitalism at work, actually. They can't afford to buy advanced diagnostic machines which causes people who might otherwise use those hospitals to choose other facilities in larger cities, thus reducing revenue below a sustainable level. It sucks, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
If we're talking about Reagan, the single most destructive thing he did (IMO) was to shape the modern conservative movement around the "government involvement in anything = bad" meme. It's destructive because 1) his acolytes rage and rage against even necessary and or possibly beneficial intrusions and 2) it sets up his own party for failure (cf. how do you govern effectively when, at core, you don't believe in the mechanism for governing? GWB, ironically, found himself in that exact bind over and over again.)
But the problem in general is: if government involvement is off the table, then how do we have a policy discussion? The conservatives in this country are doing everything they can to keep any government response completely out of the discussion. There's no real debate about how to construct a new system or change the old. The debate is entirely based around LALALALALAIDONTHEARYOUGOVERNMENTISSOCIALISM. Failing that it's LALALALPERSONALRESONSIBILITY11!1
Blend that with the fear of any new taxes anywhere ever and you we can't even start a discussion. Because anything that will address the healthcare crisis will absolutely require: higher (possibly a lot, possibly a little ) taxes; more government; and an admission that individuals are, by and large, NOT in control of their healthcare.
BTW, I think there are Dems (mostly blue dogs) who are uncomfortable with the scope of what's being proposed, but there's at least as much uncomfortability with the public reaction than with the bills in committee. And as we know, a lot of the public reaction has been ginned up or is coming from an exceptionally vocal minority.
If the Dems weren't completely incapable of message discipline, you'd see a lot less waffling and more resolve. Alas, the D's have never been particularly good at speaking with one voice, and the current debate shows that up in spades.
PS Conan, thanks in advance for not threatening to kick me in balls.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 10:06:11 AM
I was there. So was my family.
So was Chauncey Gardener. ;)
Quote from: waterboy on August 24, 2009, 02:37:53 PM
So was Chauncey Gardener. ;)
+1 for the "Being There" reference. ;D
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2009, 02:27:36 PM
But the problem in general is: if government involvement is off the table, then how do we have a policy discussion? The conservatives in this country are doing everything they can to keep any government response completely out of the discussion. There's no real debate about how to construct a new system or change the old. The debate is entirely based around LALALALALAIDONTHEARYOUGOVERNMENTISSOCIALISM. Failing that it's LALALALPERSONALRESONSIBILITY11!1
PS Conan, thanks in advance for not threatening to kick me in balls.
I know your wife and have seen your beautiful baby. I hope you make more (though I hope they wind up with a more conservative tilt ;) ) I wouldn't think of kicking you there.
Only thing I'm going to bust YOU on is the meme that conservatives have not come up with anything substantive to counter or add to health care reform other than complaints and hate. It's been documented that they have solutions they would like vetted, yet the liberal majority have done everything possible to keep conservatives from the discussion and kept anything out of conservatives from coming out of committee. I ask how can you have an intelligent conversation on health care when neither side will allow the other to speak?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 03:02:17 PM
Only thing I'm going to bust YOU on is the meme that conservatives have not come up with anything substantive to counter or add to health care reform other than complaints and hate. It's been documented that they have solutions they would like vetted, yet the liberal majority have done everything possible to keep conservatives from the discussion and kept anything out of conservatives from coming out of committee. I ask how can you have an intelligent conversation on health care when neither side will allow the other to speak?
Perhaps I'm dense, but all I've heard from the right on this issue are "OMG SOOSHULISSSMMM!!" and attempts to keep the status quo, which already includes health savings accounts and high deductible catastrophic medical insurance.
If I've missed something amongst the Hitler and socialism references, please speak up.
I'm totally serious about the Hitler thing, BTW. I was in Florida last week and saw on the local news several Obama = Hitler signs carried outside the town hall meeting a couple of Congresspersons had down there. "Hitler gave good speeches, too" is the one that stuck most in my mind. Alongside "Gov't doesn't get to decide when Grandma goes". Out of the 30 or 40 signs I saw, the vast majority were of the batshitinsane variety.
It's hard to hear reasonable discussion over that sort of noise.
And how can you say that there's no input from conservatives on this? Obama is placing far too much emphasis on bipartisanship on this issue for my taste, but again, my frustration may just be a result of the public face of the opposition.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2009, 03:48:25 PM
Perhaps I'm dense, but all I've heard from the right on this issue are "OMG SOOSHULISSSMMM!!" and attempts to keep the status quo, which already includes health savings accounts and high deductible catastrophic medical insurance.
If I've missed something amongst the Hitler and socialism references, please speak up.
I'm totally serious about the Hitler thing, BTW. I was in Florida last week and saw on the local news several Obama = Hitler signs carried outside the town hall meeting a couple of Congresspersons had down there. "Hitler gave good speeches, too" is the one that stuck most in my mind. Alongside "Gov't doesn't get to decide when Grandma goes". Out of the 30 or 40 signs I saw, the vast majority were of the batshitinsane variety.
It's hard to hear reasonable discussion over that sort of noise.
And how can you say that there's no input from conservatives on this? Obama is placing far too much emphasis on bipartisanship on this issue for my taste, but again, my frustration may just be a result of the public face of the opposition.
Please don't confuse the ignorant rantings of a few thousand (if that) cro magnons with the idealogy of every person who identifies themself as a conservative or Republican.
Start here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE55F7HR20090616
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18329
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 04:03:29 PM
Please don't confuse the ignorant rantings of a few thousand (if that) cro magnons with the idealogy of every person who identifies themself as a conservative or Republican.
The only thing confusing is why no Republicans are condemning these thousands of cro magnons.
Forget affordable health care. Here's the latest on the Senate Finance bill to screw us... posted on the DailyKos today: In otherwords the insurance industry won a big victory and we are going to pay for it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/24/771571/-The-Senate-Finance-Bill-Forces-You-To-Pay-35-of-The-Bill!
Quote from: FOTD on August 24, 2009, 04:14:25 PM
The only thing confusing is why no Republicans are condemning these thousands of cro magnons.
Forget affordable health care. Here's the latest on the Senate Finance bill to screw us... posted on the DailyKos today: In otherwords the insurance industry won a big victory and we are going to pay for it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/24/771571/-The-Senate-Finance-Bill-Forces-You-To-Pay-35-of-The-Bill!
If you don't want to hear the condemnation, chances are, you won't hear it.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 04:17:16 PM
If you don't want to hear the condemnation, chances are, you won't hear it.
The devil wants to hear it badly, Conan!
Please, tell me how to hear it. Is there a special code or listening device?
Their silence is pathetic....the lack of intent to stop their intimidating strategy is pitiful.
Here's your deaf Senaturd! You must wonder how he got through med school. And don't you just love the credibility hole this reporter blows through the crap head.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 10:06:11 AM
I was there. So was my family.
Reagan was my commander-in-chief.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 04:03:29 PM
Please don't confuse the ignorant rantings of a few thousand (if that) cro magnons with the idealogy of every person who identifies themself as a conservative or Republican.
Start here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE55F7HR20090616
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18329
I don't think that shall-issue is the solution to our problem. Sadly, that seems to be the only real reform present in the Republican plan, and that's something everyone agrees must be done.
Other than that, buying insurance in another state? Please enlighten me as to how that will actually do anything.
To be onest, I think the Democratic proposals that are on the table aren't real solutions either. Neither party is willing to endorse the radical change that is necessary to solve the problem. I blame the billions of dollars being spent on ads and campaign contributions by the insurance lobby.
Here is an interesting article relating to the practice of defensive medicine by doctors, which I believe is an integral part of the tort reform debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html
Many focus attention on the relatively insignificant payout of med mal awards, this is an angle that often times gets lost.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2009, 05:29:42 PM
Here is an interesting article relating to the practice of defensive medicine by doctors, which I believe is an integral part of the tort reform debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html
Many focus attention on the relatively insignificant payout of med mal awards, this is an angle that often times gets lost.
There are just as many unneeded tests ordered because the doctor wants to pay this month's payment on his shiny new MRI machine as there are tests ordered to ward off malpractice suits.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2009, 04:53:58 PM
I don't think that shall-issue is the solution to our problem. Sadly, that seems to be the only real reform present in the Republican plan, and that's something everyone agrees must be done.
Other than that, buying insurance in another state? Please enlighten me as to how that will actually do anything.
To be onest, I think the Democratic proposals that are on the table aren't real solutions either. Neither party is willing to endorse the radical change that is necessary to solve the problem. I blame the billions of dollars being spent on ads and campaign contributions by the insurance lobby.
Now it's gone from: "I've not heard anything but 'socialism', etc." to: "I don't think shall-issue is the solution..."
If your ideas are so entrenched that the GOP can do nothing right nor constructive, then I'll play the part and go back to posting humorous photos and ad hominems just to stir the sh!t bucket.
I do appreciate that you are willing to admit that the Democrat proposals aren't solutions either. On that you and I agree.
What very few understand is that health care reform is not about what is best for the patient. This is about extorting money from yet one more industry (actually this is a major score, you get providers, big pharma, insurers, equipment manufacturers, etc- this is far better than the fleecing of big tobacco) by making it appear totally evil, and securing power in 2010, 2012 & beyond. If no one in Congress was remotely worried about retaining their job, there's no telling what they might attempt in this bill.
If you happened to take note of the real truth behind where contributions from health care professionals, big pharma, big insurance, etc. is going, looking at it from strictly contributions to the Democrat and Republican parties and the DNC and RNC, it's close to a dead heat. Both parties appear to be collecting dirty money for influence. The net result will be a circle-jerk mish-mash that does nothing for the people it's claimed to help and all those big, evil for-profit companies will be required to give more money to the government so we can hire yet even more government employees to administer what ever "program" we wind up with. Private jobs will be lost as a result and will be shifted to the government payroll. All these industries are jockying for at this point is how little they can get away with forking over to the government in revenues and autonomy.
Government doesn't need to be as big as it is now, it certainly doesn't need to be any bigger. The only true advantage to a large bureaucracy is job security for those who work for the government and perhaps stabilizing and lowering unemployment. I suppose it could be argued too that it becomes workfare instead of welfare if only it would end up employing those who would otherwise collect money being unproductive..
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 05:48:25 PM
Now it's gone from: "I've not heard anything but 'socialism', etc." to: "I don't think shall-issue is the solution..."
I read the articles you posted and found them to be referring to do nothing bills. Are you saying I have to
like the Republican proposal or I'm just a shill?
Quote
I do appreciate that you are willing to admit that the Democrat proposals aren't solutions either. On that you and I agree.
I think the Democrat's proposals I've seen are of the "better than nothing" category. Sure as smile better than the Medicare Part D fleece job we got from the Republicans, but utterly worthless without the public option.
Quote
What very few understand is that health care reform is not about what is best for the patient. This is about extorting money from yet one more industry (actually this is a major score, you get providers, big pharma, insurers, equipment manufacturers, etc- this is far better than the fleecing of big tobacco) by making it appear totally evil, and securing power in 2010, 2012 & beyond. If no one in Congress was remotely worried about retaining their job, there's no telling what they might attempt in this bill.
Insurance companies aren't evil, but if they were people they would be. You are right, though, if it were about what is best for the people of our country, we'd go with single payer universal health care and be done with health insurance except insofar as they chose to offer supplemental coverage.
This watered down BS we're going to get thanks to the Rush-bot lies and the big pharma and big insurance lobbying money won't do nearly what it should.
I have noticed that when a political program is not being well received, the claim is that "we are not getting our message out". Sometimes the reality is that you are getting your message out and it is being rejected.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 24, 2009, 08:45:58 PM
I have noticed that when a political program is not being well received, the claim is that "we are not getting our message out". Sometimes the reality is that you are getting your message out and it is being rejected.
You're hearing a different excuse than I am. All I keep hearing is "racism" and "hate".
Of course tools showing up with guns to town hall meetings and rhetoric like "nazi" and "death squad" isn't helping the opposition.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2009, 05:32:05 PM
There are just as many unneeded tests ordered because the doctor wants to pay this month's payment on his shiny new MRI machine as there are tests ordered to ward off malpractice suits.
Gotta link to support that point? Still, as expected, you continue to carry the water for Obama's message. Remember when Obama came out with this real winner of an argument as to tonsillectomies:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574308472181248330.html
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 24, 2009, 08:45:58 PM
Sometimes the reality is that you are getting your message out and it is being rejected.
And sometimes your message is drowned out by factually incorrect rhetoric spewed forth by the other side's political operatives.
If I believed what the wingnutters were saying about Obama's plan, I'd be protesting in the streets also. Luckily, I have the wherewithal to understand what both sides are saying and make my own decision.
And guido, I suppose if you consider being in greater agreement with Obama on this issue than with Boehner, Limbaugh, and Beck carrying water, then yes, I am proudly carrying water for the concept of forming one's own opinion.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2009, 11:11:55 PM
If I believed what the wingnutters were saying about Obama's plan, I'd be protesting in the streets also. Luckily, I have the wherewithal to understand what both sides are saying and make my own decision.
"Wing-nutters?" "tea-baggers?"
You won't even give their POV a chance, much less a second thought.
I hope you don't consider yourself a moderate or independent.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so long as it resembles my own"
-Conanism
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2009, 01:32:44 AM
"Wing-nutters?" "tea-baggers?"
You won't even give their POV a chance, much less a second thought.
I hope you don't consider yourself a moderate or independent.
I take it you don't think there are some on both sides who have their heads so far up their asses they can't tell truth from a lie? Basically, you know you're a wingnutter if you're talking about "death councils" or saying "obama=hitler." Equally, you are a stoopid librul if you say "bush=hitler" or you're talking about "no more war for oil."
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there are some people so enamored with their position that they have proven themselves to be not worth listening to since they can only think in terms of their "side."
If you can't see that, you may be listening to KRMG or watching Fox News too much.
I'm an independent in the sense that both parties are full of idiots. That said, I'm wedded to the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. Neither party really represents me, FWIW. Maybe if the Republicans stop spooning the evangelists, the defense lobby, and the Chicago school types, I might regain some respect for them.
Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2009, 02:35:27 AM
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there are some people so enamored with their position that they have proven themselves to be not worth listening to since they can only think in terms of their "side."
Hmmm, no I wasn't aware of that. ;)
Conan, your Conanism is too close to my "Waterspout" which I stole from a poster back in the seventies. I live by this credo, "Its my opinion and...its also very true".
Quote from: waterboy on August 25, 2009, 02:33:33 PM
Conan, your Conanism is too close to my "Waterspout" which I stole from a poster back in the seventies. I live by this credo, "Its my opinion and...its also very true".
That's a slice of awesomeness!
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2009, 10:20:41 PM
Try again Waterboy. President Reagan, Cap Weinberger and George Schultz were the masters of detente`.
The rough patch our region went through in the 1980's had little to zilch to do with Reagan's economics or tax cuts. There was a never-ending orgy of higher and higher interest rates from the Carter years which finally broke the back of the average homeowner and businessman, a borrowing binge based on oil approaching $40 a barrel, and some seriously greedy and dishonest bankers willing to roll the dice and bankroll speculative life-styles.
Reagan inherited a very full plate. Can you honestly say with a straight face that America was worse off when Reagan left office than when he took it? Where's your credibility when you spit on President Reagan, a man whom history has objectively shown was a very, very effective President? Who won the Cold War, if it wasn't Reagan?
Hmmm. Facts are pesky things.
(http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/national-debt.jpg)
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html
Facts sure are pesky:
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2009, 08:03:36 PM
What does my dislike of Obama have to do with the fact that he is a liar? Nothing.
It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
If you applied your blatant biases against Obama and used the same standard against all other US Presidents...... all of them would be liars.
So, if you want to advance the argument that all politicians are liars, that's a point of view I can respect, even if I think it's just being used as a cynical ploy.
Quote
BTW, are you suggesting that Obama was truthful about accepting public finance?
He changed his mind.... because of people like ME. Thousands... tens of thousands... hundreds of thousands of SMALL DONORS.
Republicans love stories like this because it advances the conservative argument that a good message is more necessary to raise money than relying on public financing.
You should ADMIRE Obama's decision to honor his donor base rather than shun them to keep a promise to take public financing. I, as an Obama supporter, would have been angry at him if he shunned my donations in order to honor a public financing pledge.
Quote
He was truthful about lobbyists not being in his administration? Like your links (which in large part acknowledge the lie but try to minimize its significance) and your analysis. Its a matter of degree of the lie.
Per usual, you only apply this standard to Obama and not to Reagan.... that was my point, and it's still valid.
Quote
For your edification as to what Obama ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed to news prints' reflection/distortion, as to several of these issues raised in this thread:
LOBBYISTS:
Change of direction here... not easy... but the prez is trying to keep his promises...
Public Interest Groups Decry Obama's Strict Lobbying Ruleshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104074.html
Obama Freezes Pay, Toughens Ethics and Lobbying Ruleshttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azQJo_wu7f64
QuoteSIGNING STATEMENTS:
Obama has issued five signing statements to date, any idea the number Bush had issued at this point of his presidency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29
Applying a metric to signing statements
There is a controversy about how to count an executive's use of signing statements.[5] A "flat count" of total signing statements would include the rhetorical and political statements as well as the constitutional. This may give a misleading number when the intent is to count the number of constitutional challenges issued.
Another common metric is to count the "number of statutes" that are disputed by signing statements. This addresses a count of the constitutional issues but may be inherently inaccurate, due not only to ambiguity in the signing statements themselves but also to the method of determining which statutes are challenged.
A Congressional Research Service report issued on September 17, 2007,[6] uses as a metric the percentage of signing statements that contain "objections" to provisions of the bill being signed into law:
President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton's conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.[6]In March 2009, the New York Times cited a different metric, the number of sections within bills that were challenged in signing statements:
"Mr. Bush ... broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio."[7] QuotePUBLIC FINANCE:
I don't think anything more needs to be said about this one.
No. But considering your steadfast refusal to shuddup about it, I will continue to tell you that WE WON THE ELECTION. The American people saw through your howling partisanship. I am PROUD that Obama reversed himself on this issue due to his own success.... And I am PROUD to continue to support Obama and will be giving donations for his re-election, too. And if I have no other reason to donate to Obama because I end up personally unhappy with his presidency... I will still donate just to SPITE jackbooted conservative lie spewers like yourself.
Quote
TRANSPARENCY:
Well, how's that working out:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obamas_fiveday_rule_broken_aga.html
Pretty good, actually. Compared to the last eight years.... very good.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/transparency/
Quote
As for your attack on Reagan, are you serious? Reagan was a bad president on the economy?
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0165_Reagans_accomplishme.html
Noticed you left off of your list of Reagan failures the end of the cold war.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/aironlater/reagan.jpg)
Quote
USRUF has once again brought a knife to a gun fight. You newbies out there, remember this thread if you are thinking about taking Nate and this guy seriously.
That's some serious hubris, arrogance and egotism.... the kind of attitude you accuse Obama of, BTW....
And for you newbies out there....
This is not a gun fight.
This is not a knife fight.
This is a PISSING MATCH.And I've got a twelve-pack with Guido's name on it.
Go ahead.... MAKE MY DAY. :P
(http://static.desktopnexus.com/wallpapers/25332-bigthumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2009, 06:27:26 PM
Facts sure are pesky:
Yep. And the sooner the Bush tax-cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, the better. And Bush should have advanced a "war tax" to pay for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he was too big of a wus to do so........ let's just make future generations pay for our wars while making the George W Bush tax cuts permanent..... yeah, pull my finger.
On war costs, Bush is master of disguisehttp://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/05/on_war_costs_bush_is_master_of_disguise/
QuoteBut the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded through emergency spending requests since they began. You might think someone in the Pentagon or the White House Office of Management and Budget could project costs for a year. Apparently not.
Why is a supplemental request the budget vehicle of choice? Because as an emergency measure, it doesn't count against the budget ceiling that Congress adopts to guide spending, and therefore isn't figured into government estimates of our annual budget deficit. So, for the last four years, these emergency spending bills have helped President Bush obscure the true cost of the war.
Wonder what that chart would look like if WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WERE INCLUDED....
http://costofwar.com/
Quote from: USRufnex on August 25, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Yep. And the sooner the Bush tax-cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, the better. And Bush should have advanced a "war tax" to pay for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he was too big of a wus to do so........ let's just make future generations pay for our wars while making the George W Bush tax cuts permanent..... yeah, pull my finger.
On war costs, Bush is master of disguise
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/05/on_war_costs_bush_is_master_of_disguise/
Wonder what that chart would look like if WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WERE INCLUDED....
http://costofwar.com/
It's Bush's fault. Yawn.
Well done Ruf.
Guido, isn't Obama your commander-in-chief? Do you drop that label when you step out of the uniform and join the masses?
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2009, 08:57:04 PM
It's Bush's fault. Yawn.
Weren't you the one blaming the housing crisis on Clinton?
Quote from: USRufnex on August 25, 2009, 05:45:29 PM
Hmmm. Facts are pesky things.
(http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/national-debt.jpg)
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html
I really liked the inflation of the Carter years. It made it easier to pay things off as long as you were actively employed. Fixed income folks had it a bit more difficult. I was getting 15% on my CDs. Of course they weren't worth much more by the time they matured. I also liked the way the cuts in the military spending enabled us to have well trained personnel and top equipment to attempt a rescue of the hostages in Iran.
The dotcom bubble helped Clinton. Towards the end of his administration, the economy was starting to tank. I almost voted for Al to give him the credit for the economic downturn that followed. Al and Bill are lucky Bush won or they would have gotten credit for the downturn. Can't speculate about the wars and what Al would have done. I remember debating in High School about Goldwater vs. Johnson. Johnson painted Goldwater as a warmonger with the implication that he (Johnson) would keep us from becoming more involved. I seem to remember Johnson had at least a minor role in increasing the forces in Viet Nam and a few other places in SE Asia that weren't talked about much. There were a few Americans that didn't like that war any more than the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Hey guys, what happened to public insurance being off the table? Few ad hominems, red herrings, and strawmen and here we are.
Ruf, what's your take on the debt chart going to be in four years when President Obama smashes all records? Bush's fault? He's doing the same thing Reagan did, trying to spend the country out of a recession and unemployment. I have yet to see one of the usual libs on here show me with any substantive evidence that America was worse off the day Reagan left office. Nothing but anecdotal partisan hackery.
Keep in mind too that the increased spending under Reagan and Bush I happened wtih a Democrat Congress. Clinton's reductions were with a Republican Congress. Facts are a beotch. Still have no idea w*t*f* happened with that GOP majority under Bush II...sheesh what a cluster fark.
BOT- It's revealed today we are $9 trill in the tank BEFORE rescuing healthcare.