BTW, that jackass from South Carolina who yelled LIES from his seat while the President was speaking? Show some fucking class, you fucking twit. If the Democrats did anything like that, Bush would have him audited, tackled by the Secret Service, sent to Guantanamo, and then he'd really get nasty..


(ok, some hyperbole there, but not much really. Seriously, show some class, you nitwit.)

I'm probably overestimating what a response should be. I was looking for a real response about what Republicans would do but instead it was more of a "Yeah, let's change a few things but that's about it." type response.

Unless the Republican response to health care reform actually is "Yeah, let's change a few things but that's about it."

It's an impossible job, which is why no star wants to have it. Nothing you can say or do equals the majesty of the President in front of Congress.

On another note, I almost feel bad for the members of the minority party that sit towards the front. They seem to spend half the night looking around like, "We're standing for this part? Why the hell didn't anyone tell me?"

The new hero of the right wing: Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)

I think it's going to be a LONG hang-over (in terms of jobs, spending like we use to, and a full-out recovery). Some articles and reports signal the idea of a jobless recovery.

That's my representative, I'm so proud.

Who the hell is the RNC hiring to direct these response speeches? No excuse for how horrible the last two have looked. Having seen the two Louisiana Republicans give other speeches, I can't help but think the RNC has dropped the ball and not Jindal and Boustany.

I <3 this President. He presented it so beautifully, in such a common-sense way that it's difficult to disagree with. And it includes all the components I wanted to see...let's get it done!!

I don't know why it takes till 2013 for the Exchange, but there's interim Emergency Protection, so that's okay.

I was honestly really worried that he was going to come out here and not live up to what I thought of him and basically gave and look weak, but this was a great showing and a great plan that he laid out, while taking care to try to make it bipartisan (referring to McCain and other Republicans).

Honestly, this reform seems like it should do the trick as far as getting things on the path to being fixed. Now let's get it done!

this comment was rather :rolleyes: by you I must say. Just silly trying to bait people.

2013.....Love it. If he doesn't get re-elected, it's on a GOP president. Politics as usual.

As a campaign move, it was as brilliant to compare the public option to public colleges as it was stupid to compare it to the Post Office.

How many public college grads are out there? How many of them are in the moderate middle class that needs to be convinced about health reform? Just a very smart way to re-frame the debate.

It is worth noting that these polls tend to be more positive than the general reaction b/c people who are already predisposed to listen are the ones who tune in.

At first glance at least, here's a decent little piece from AP fact checking the differences in what was said tonight vs what had been said about the plan previously, including his flip-flop on making coverage mandatory between the primary (where he criticized Hillary for suggesting it) & now (where it's suddenly a good idea after all apparently)
My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama drops iffy line on health plan

Y'think?

I did two fantasy football live drafts while this crap was on.

love the fact that he's declared it'll be deficit-neutral with, if you will, a "deficit-neutral trigger" in it (requiring spending cuts if it's not neutral)

so what's your point? that he changed his mind on things?

that's fine.

I don't know about you (actually wait I bet I do), but I like having a President who listens and changes his mind about things when it's clear that he was wrong or there are better ways.

The traditional view on flip flopping is changing your view to the more popular or political advantageous side of the debate. I don't know if I am reading too much into this, but there seemed to be a lukewarm reception on both sides of the aisle when he specifically mentioned mandatory coverage.

(And I am with the luke warm reception, even as a progressive/liberal. Forcing every living citizen to buy something from the private sector sends up all kinds of red flags in my mind.)

car insurance? okay it's not perfect, but it's pretty close.

look, if a mandate is required in order to be able to get the rest of the reforms then i'm fine with it. especially when you have a public option in the insurance exchange, the insurance exchange, and hardship wavers

Do you think a President who changes their mind has any obligation to note that they're changing their mind, and perhaps give an explanation as to why their mind was changed?

What about car insurance? Every living citizen is not required to get car insurance. Different argument all together. But, for the record, I also cringe about mandatory car insurance from the private sector.

If a man lives in a cabin in the woods, pays his taxes, and never uses hospitals, he shouldn't be forced to buy protection from the private sector for services he doesn't want or need. Now if insurances were run from the public sector, that's a total different situation and argument that can be made. But that's not the case yet, and it sounds like mandatory coverage is more important to this plan than a public option.

Not necessarily. I think it'd be nice...but I don't think it should be a condition of him expressing his new view.

Otherwise it becomes "I changed my mind to X and this is why..." and it makes your speech really convoluted and lengthy.

if a man lives in a cabin in the woods and is a hermit i have a feeling there's not going to be a government official banging down his door demanding that he get healthcare.

there's not going to be "governmental insurance police" or anything

lol - the republican response was bad.

it's kinda rough though, cuz you go on right after the president and you don't have a chance to alter your speech based on what the president said. it definitely always shows though

That's very true, but I think even in the primaries, Obama KNEW that a mandate was essential for universal health care (mostly because if you drastically increase regulations on insurance companies, premiums will skyrocket without a counterbalance... that counterbalance is mandates). Just about every economist said it, but he knew he'd get more votes saying he didn't want a mandate. I think he was just playing politics then and switching to what he knew was the right course now.

Yeah, I will fully admit it's rather OTT, but come on, it seems like we've lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable, (and I will say that I count myself amongst that number at times)..

The problem is, I'm some Joe Schmoe on a messageboard, and he's a representative of the United States.

That is all well and good, but it still is pretty screwed up that he could be considered a criminal for not purchasing something from the private sector. The whole idea feels like kissing my sister, and I don't even have a sister.

exactly. the mandate is the counterbalance for the serious regulation on the insurance companies to balance their risk so that they can survive

BTW, I will give at least a little props to Wilson for apparently already calling the Prez to apologize. Still doesn't mean it wasn't a jackass thing to do..

Well, the insurance companies will survive... they'll just cause premiums to shoot through the roof and that benefits no one.

good point, i should have been more clear and said "survive without jacking premiums through the roof and thus defeating the purpose of reform"

If only the utter garbage he spewed tonight (based on the recaps, like I said, I had better things to do than listen to our reigning fencepost turtle) was better than what he said before.

Alas, the dumb bastard managed to screw up one of the few things he'd actually said remotely approaching right on the subject.

And, not only that, but for those who see the "public option" as a panacea for all ills, the public option will have to be self sustaining. If the only people in the public option are the older and sicker folk without the young and healthy, guess what the premiums are going to look like there? Not much different than the insurance companies with skyrocketing premiums.

nah, because the older people will be on medicare.

it'll just be unemployed + such

Then again comparing it to car insurance was a bad idea. One, you can choose not to drive. Two, if you have more claims and cost the plan more money, you pay drastically more for car insurance. I'm not hearing that people who use more health insurance will have to pay more. I'm just hearing it will cost other people more to carry the heavy user. Also, if you can't afford car isurance, the rest of the US tax payers don't have to foot the bill for you to drive. If you are a really bad driver, you may become uninsurable and not able to legally drive. How does that equate in the health care crossover?

Also, making it a mandate supports the horrible practice of forcing people to practice certain behavior because they may cost a plan more money. Such as taxing fatty foods, punishing people for personal choices that really only harm themselves. This is all based on the premise it will hit the wallet of others. Not a good game to get into.




The mandate is the equivalent of a head tax. You have to pay for insurance to live here as a legal tax paying citizen. It goes against the principal our country was founded upon. Forcing citizens to do what they don't want to do when they are not hurting anyone else is a disaster.

how do you feel about income tax?

are you a free-stater?

Dola,

The biggest negative to his whole plan may be that he refuses to touch Medicare. If you don't include that in the reform, then you are wasting everyone's time.

I'm not 100% sure what a free-stater means, so I really can't answer that.

Income tax, not the same as a head tax. A head tax is something you have to pay just for existing. An income tax is something you pay based on what you earn. In a decent plan the income tax can be okay. Our income tax system is too cumbersome. It is also true that we prospered very well until 1913 without an income tax.

At this point, we probably just need to reform the income tax code. But not get rid of it.

The world is a vastly different place than it was in 1913 though. As is this country. But you're not advocating abolishing income tax, so that's okay. My point was more along the lines of "things change and we need to be willing to change with them rather than hew to a strict constructionist reading of the constitution or other documents written in the past."

Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually our country was founded on the principle of taxation without representation (people tend to forget the representation part a lot). They've been represented. There was this landslide Democratic victory. Elections have consequences.

And a sales tax is, in all practicality, a "head tax" because no one goes through life not paying for a single single.

How is it going to pay for itself with its premiums (as promised) if unemployed people are getting it (presumably for free)?

i don't know if you can presume they'd be getting it for free. and that also wasn't an official answer as to who would be covered by it.

i don't have the answer to that question honestly. But i'm sure it will be spelled out in the bill that somebody ought to be reading.

Hence the mandate.

And, of course, some government accounting (I'm sure) ;). The unemployed will be getting a tax break to purchase insurance, which likely will be the cost of the public plan insurance (if it survives). Whether that'll be considered for self-sufficiency, I'm not sure.

I agree, the world is vastly different from the world of 1913. We likely would not fair well to just try and keep things the same. I don't really see the take on the constitution quite the same as you. It is actually a pretty good framework to maintain. It allows for a lot of flexibility and progress. Yes even social progress. I don't think it is a good thing to let people lord over others in the name of a social safety net.


The primary principle was Liberty.

True people can argue very well both sides of income and sales taxes. But one thing is certain, they are not even close to being equivalent of a head tax. You may need to buy things, but you are voluntarily choosing to part with your cash for a good or service that you think is worth it.

A health care mandate is forcing people to buy something they don't want and don't think is worth their money. You also are not necessarily getting anything. It can't lead to anything good in the long run.


Sure, I would rather live in todays world. Do you have any idea what it was like to live in other countries in 1913. Generally not as good as ours. Also, the prosperity since 1913 was not attributed to social safety net spending or whatever else you are eluding too.

Sure if you want to live in a secure environment to enjoy your liberty, you will need some type of tax base. But free health care for all is a pipe dream. It's not like air, people have to provide the service. Any time you rely on another person for something, it is not a right.

Anyway, I definately understand where you guys are coming from. You pretty much just have a higher tolerance and desire for social programs. I just wish there was a way for you to get it without taking it from people who don't feel the same way.

Mine was texting during the speech. Yeah, Eric Cantor is now my Rep. How I long for the days of Dennis Moore and Kansas (who I didn't particularly like).

SI

Apparently, another representative thought he was at WWE Raw, not a speech in front of congress and the nation, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) held up signs that read "What Bill?" and "What Plan?"

ohhhh behave.

or at least make one post tomorrow summarizing all of this instead of poking again and again.

then again, maybe you're just bored at work

At least he took time out from appearing on Alex Jones show to attend.

Grammaticus: The problem is that the uninsured are already taking from me. I pay for their emergency care in the form of higher medical costs. I'll admit that an insurance mandate is an infringement on those who don't want insurance, but the current system is an infringement on those that do have insurance. It isn't a choice between freedom and limitations, its a matter of which limitations you think are best.

How many times do we have to go over this? The public option would pay for itself in that it would have to survive on the premiums it collects. Separate from that, those unable to afford insurance would have their premiums subsidized. Many of those would be on the public option, but there would also be a group of subsidized premiums that would have private insurance.

I'll admit. I'm relatively impressed that, outside of SirFozzie, most everyone was sensible enough to not waste much time in the thread with the stupidity of a couple of House members during the speech. I have no doubt they'll be regretting their actions today when they get hammered their fellow members and constituents alike.

Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst was ridiculous and shows how some folks really don't seem to be comfortable with "this guy" as President.

In any case, the whole health care obscures the fact that whatever we're doing now is costing us tons, the GOP isn't proposing any solutions that seem to fix the problem (when there are lots of market-based solutions that could) and the Dems don't seem intent on using that so-called majority they have to do anything other than shuffle their feet as normal.

Seems like business as usual in DC to me.

To be fair, the Republicans have three alternative bills up for consideration. Whether they fix the problem or not is personal opinion, but they have some other options presented. You can search the following names at the Library of Congress link to actually read the bills, which perhaps you've already done.

-Patients Choice Act of 2009
-Health Care Freedom Plan
-Empowering Patients First Act

Bill Text Search for the 111th Congress - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Liberty being that our society able to decide for ourselves what is best (self determination mixed with democratic notions). And in order to promote that, formed a republican system. Which is being used right now. This is democracy (or republicanism, if you will) in action.


The last sentance only makes sense if that person never visits a health professional in their lifetimes. Now, I'm perfectly willing to have said people who decide not to purchase health insurance to be turned away by hospitals after an accident and billed for any paramedics called to the scene. But I'm guessing the willingly uninsured would howl at the moon if that were called to pass.

I don't feel like subsidizing freeloaders anymore. If that means they are forced to get into the system to provide health care to everyone then tough. I feel its the same as an income or sales tax. You see a difference. We just don't agree on this issue.

Question:

If people lead unhealthy lifestyles and then have related medical treatments that they cannot pay for, or the insurance companies will not pay for, don't those cost result in higher insurance premiums for those who do lead healthy lives?

Personally, I don't see how taxing unhealthy foods is a problem. Its just a deterrent towards living more healthy. Same as tobacco. You can smoke, it just gonna cost you.

What do current tobacco taxes go towards? We just raised it again in Wisconsin but I don't think any of it actually went toward anything health related.

I have no problems with those taxes either as long as the money goes toward what it should be going.

You won't see the difference initially, but say, 10-15 years down the line when its just a better financial choice to live heathy there will be an associated cost reduction in the healthcare system.

i don't think you'll ever see that happen.

what about skinny people who want to have ice cream - they have to pay a tax even though ice cream isn't going to cause them any health problems?

business travelers at the airport who can only eat fast food have to pay a tax because they have no other options?

patrons at stadiums having to pay the tax because they're a captive consumer?

i don't think you'll see that happen frankly.

Who gets the power to decide what is healthy and what is not? The government has absolutely no business taxing me on something (as a deterrent for consuming said item) because they think it's icky. Note I said as a deterrent. Liquor taxes are not really a deterrent to encourage not drinking. Cigarette taxes are (and I thusly find them quite ridiculous).

Sorry, no more red meat for you, it's bad for you! Have some nice tofu. Sorry, want a coke? That'll be 10 bucks. Have some juice instead, only 2 bucks.

Fuck that.

I agree. And then you'll have people that are for example iron deficient claiming discrimination because red meat is taxed higher than chicken?

no way.

So it will "pay for itself" with the help of government subsidized-premiums for people who can't afford it?

Because there is ZERO way it can truly pay for itself if the government is paying for any signficant number of premiums. That just makes no sense. Unless the premiums for the "paying" class of public option customers are really high - but who exactly is going to be allowed to get the public option, and how much exactly is it going to cost? Especially the latter question - why is this such a secret?

Why does everyone bring up tofu=healthy lifestyle? I'm pretty healthy (at least my doctor says so) and I don't eat tofu.

Anyway, for the cost of healthcare to decrease, Americans will have to live more healthy, period. Our current financial state shows that people weren't willing to take the personal responsibility necessary to keep our financial system afloat. Healthcare is next to go down the crapper, especially with the idea that your personal decisions, somehow, don't affect anyone else.

Another question:

What is the hesitation about letting insurance companies sell across state lines?

That's like arguing there's no difference between a couple that likes watching porn in their bedroom and a couple that wants to make porn at the local park.

Sorry, but most people would see a big damn difference between a mechanism that encourages people to save money and something that punishes them for drinking a soda or smoking a cigarette.

Isn't it "encouragement" to live healthy?

This isn't that hard. Let's try a different example.

Let's say a private company is formed for the uninsured. That private company largely gets clients that are paying premiums that are subsidized by the federal government. However, the government doesn't give them any extra money, so the company has to survive solely on the premiums, whether subsidized by the government or not.

Now let's say another private company is formed. That private company also largely gets clients that are paying premiums that are subsidized by the federal government AND they also get 10 billion a year in government support. That company doesn't have to survive only on it's premiums as it starts 10 billion in the black.

Now use those above examples, but replace private company with public option. Can you see how its possible that the public option would have to survive on premiums alone, even if those premiums are subsidized by the government?

As to cost, how exactly can you set the precise cost of an insurance plan that hasn't been created and won't go into effect for four years?

I've been wanting to do a giant sin tax thread and have it half written. Maybe I should get back to work on that.

SI

Get back to sinning or writing?

The only thing I can think of is resetting the entire framework for regulation of insurance companies. Because right now the states are responsible for insurance company regulation.

No. Encouraging people to do healthier things would mean a benefit or a credit for engaging in healthy behavior, not punishing people for behavior that the government deems to be unhealthy.

The government?

Every competent healthcare provider would say the same thing. Americans are unhealthy. Live it up for 25 years, then complain about the issues they have when they get old. BAM!!! There goes 15% of our budget through Medicare, because you old asses didn't have the financial savvy to save or live healthy. :lol:

There is a benefit. Healthy foods would be cheaper.

I don't want to get into a healthy living debate, but aren't the benefit and punishment the same thing? If I'm denied a 500 dollar tax credit for my behavior aren't I losing the the same if I am taxed an extra 500?

Somehow I don't consider it "self sufficient" when the government can charge itself whatever it wants make sure the system works. If it charges premiums of $20,000 a year, and pays for that itself (with defecit spending), that makes it "self sufficient" under that reasoning.

I'm not asking for a precise number, but how can anyone know whether this will be a real "option", without having any idea of how much the premiums are going to cost?

I don't understand.

If they don't have a complete, concrete idea that the majority of reps can agree on, how would they do cost analysis?

I think that's a reasonable concern, although 20k is hyperbole. I'm not sure how premiums would be set and at this point I think at best there will be a public option with a trigger, so I'm not really concerned with it's premiums right now.

However, I at least hope you can see what is meant by self-sufficient.

The cost analysis is the most important thing. It's all theoretical ideas at this point, with not a lot of attention apparently being paid to how everything will fit together.

:rant: NO TRIGGER!!!!

A goddamn trigger will just ensure that it never comes to pass and there won't be meaningful reform as a result of it because it'll just be repealed. :rant:

That's because we're still a long way from a final bill and further still from implementation. At this point the best you can do is put an overall budget on it and work from that big number.

At least it does appear that Obama has officially switched from, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", to now last night, "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have".

Yeah, but I'll bet that's going to be the compromise that gets most Dems on board.

not sure if you were being funny, but aren't those the same thing?

then i'll have to campaign against the democrats and have to start voting for candidates further to the left :rant:

Joe Friday: Are trying to stall us? Or are you just senile?
Abe Simpson: A little from column A and a little from column B.

SI

No, they are very different to most people.

The former implies that you (the insured) have a choice in the matter. This is only true if you are the plan financier, irregardless of whether you want to switch or perceive the public plan to be inferior to what you have.

The latter just states that the government is not telling you that you must switch but at least caveats the potential for your plan to switch to the public.

I'm sure they are quaking ;)

It depends on how its approached imho as to how people percieve it although what you say is largely true.

For instance an additional tax on cigarettes basically punishes people for smoking by taking more money from them, but people generally accept such things without too much arguement because they know smoking is 'bad' for them rather than kicking up a huge fuss.

If the goverment decided to add a small tax to certain foods with very unhealthy ingredients (I'm thinking of the burgers I saw in Walmart the other day with a whopping 90% of your daily fat intake in a single burger) and use the money raised from that to subside healthy food like fruit to a reasonable level then again I think people would adapt to it with only a minimum of grumbling because its fairly obvious that the choices they're steering you towards are sensible ones.

This is why despite many people being smokers the actual 'fuss' caused by banning smoking in restaurants etc. was actually very small compared to the amount of change its enforced n society - its because people in their heart of hearts know smoking is bad for them, its just they needed a 'push' to do anything about it.

PS - Yes its 'socialism' to some extent and America see's that as 'BAD' - but its no different in reality to paying a property tax on a house to be honest, the property taxes go into things which help people (police, infrastructure etc.) and people can't opt out from that either.

Ummmmmmm................

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan « - Blogs from CNN.com


So the disparity if you factor in an 8-10 point overrepresentation of Democrats and an 8-10 point underrepresentation of Republicans could be 16-20 points difference?

Probably made a poor choice of polls to represent that the general public overwhelmingly likes this legislation. I'm not even sure why CNN posted this poll given the large difference in representation of the polling group when compared to the general public.

First off everyone has been careful to note that and say it's not representative. nobody here is treating it as anything more than a snap-poll.

Secondly, you can't assume that the 8-10pts that are over-represented in (D) would be (R) in the general population (although I do concede that it is likely close to that).

Oh Jesus... not another poll discussion...

I'm not too interested in it overall other than just to point out that it was an extremely lousy poll and doesn't belong in the discussion.

Just by way of giving our liberals a heads up of the next talking point, here's a little something I got in my email today

I'd be more interested in knowing the ratings for the speech, as opposed to the poll numbers before and after.

Spare the rod, spoil the child, yo.

And these aren't really behavior that the "government deems to be unhealthy" these are behaviors that "science deems to be unhealthy." I don't think there's much of a debate that drinking soda isn't healthy, smoking isn't healthy, drinking alcohol isn't healthy.

Personally, I have no real issue with a sin tax. It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. If I engage in behaviors that increase the risk of me becoming a burden to society then I should be expected to chip in a little bit into the common pool when I engage in these behaviors. I will make the cost/beneift analysis as to when the cost (tax) of engaging in said behavior out weighs the benefit (my enjoyment) of said behavior. I don't really drink pop and I don't smoke, but I do drink a lot of beer and if the state of federal government slapped a 2-4% "sin tax" on it, I'd either buy cheaper beer (unlikey), drink less (less unlikey, bust still quite unlikely), or suck it up (most likely).

Decisions have consequences, folks. Cowboy up.

As for the encouraging good versus punishing bad, administratively it's much easier to institute a sin tax/punish people for doing something unhealthy than it is to give people credits for engaging in healthy behavior/not engaging in harmful behavior. How would the latter work, for example? Constant blood tests to ensure they are not drinking pop or alcohol or smoking?

First off I don't even see Obama heading in this direction so no reason for me to get too involved in this line of thought, but good God I hope you don't beleive this line of bullshit.

Want to know what kind of decisions are a burden on everyone? How about choosing not to work? How about engaging in high risk drug usage and high risk sexual behavior? How about living in a city that is below sea level? These are decisions that I have never made but not only are these people not punished or told not to do these things but my fucking tax money is going to help them out.

Hrm... You're really confusing me. So, because we can't have people pay for all decisions they make that can burden societ, we should ask people to pay for some?

You really seem to be in favor of sin taxes given your anger over the fact that your tax money is going to help people who do things you don't think they should be doing.

Over course, we can't tax every decision a person makes that could potentially be a burden on societ, nor would I ever think we ever should. But, as you would appear to agree (given your outrage), we might as well do a little here and there where it's relatively easy, no? That way maybe fewer people will engage in these behaviors and your "fucking tax money" wont be going to help them out, but instead will be going to help you out. I hope that's a "line of bullshit" we can all believe in.

People aren't told not to engage in high risk drug usage and high risk sexual behavior? Really? Back when I was in school that message was pretty soundly beaten into us. That was a while ago, however, so things might have changed.

And, I'm sort of in favor of legalizing marijuana and taxing the shit out of it.

Steve: That post would be better with a more comprehensive list.

When I say most, I mean it's the compromise position most likely to get to the floor. I know that there are probably enough votes in the House for a public option and there might be enough in the Senate if they pushed it through reconciliation, but that's not going to happen. At the end of the day some sort of compromise is going to be made and I think a public option with trigger is going to be that compromise. Sure it won't ever trigger, but it's the one optoin that allows everybody to share in the victory.

If you really get into the crosstabs you can make a case that this poll is good news for McCain's presidential campaign.

The weird thing about the poll is a state like Alabama seems to have little support for any health care reform. They also have one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the country, almost 6 years less than the top state.

I mean if you are likely to live longer in Bahrain or Ecuador than your own state, you'd think you'd be looking for some kind of change in the situation.

Medical marijuana a bit strong today?

You can try and be clever and use the supposed quotes of my original post all you want. You made a very illogical post about why it's okay to tax soda and beer and then an even more illogical reply to my response. Not worth even discussing with you. Either re-read my post and try to understand or don't. I don't really care but I am not going to reply to any of the nonsense above.