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.