The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

#2: So you want to discriminate against people who are genetically predisposed (through no fault of their own) to being overweight? Nice...real nice. Why not just drag all the fatties out into the street and shoot them? But why stop there? What about people who are genetically predisposed to heart disease? Or diabetes? Do you know how much of our healthcare costs go to pay for people with diabetes?

But the opposing viewpoint on this would be...where do you draw the line on predisposition? I think that leads to a very slippery slope.

So, if somebody has a predisposition to diabetes and continues to maintain an unhealthy lifestyle for somebody with their predisposition, why should you and I pay for it? No? How will we monitor such people? If the government is doing it, how many more "lifetime employees" will we need to hire in order to track such things in the name of reducing waste or cost (i.e. read the irony)?

What about mental predispositions to all kinds of unhealthy activities? What if I can find a doctor who says that my diffcult childhood has "predisposed" me to an addictive personality which is a direct causation for my smoking cigarettes? So do me and all the crackheads get to do what we want because we have an "out"?

I realize the mental predisposition argument is highly improbable today...and I really don't mean to poke at people with real medical issue that lead them to health issues...but we continue (as a country) to find reasons why everybody "can't help it" that they have issues(not just healthcare). We have to help those that cannot help themselves...but IMHO we cannot help ALL who have some issues helping themselves.

But we cannot do either one of those if there is no reasonable way to afford it. Can we afford Universal Healthcare? Sure we can...we just need to cut the living shit out of that federal budget and we'll be all set.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am not a doctor but I believe diabetes is predominantly caused by behavior. So is being overweight. You are right there are 100 lb people who get heart disease and people with healthy lifestyles who get diabetes but let's not pretend like this country doesn't have horrible problems with obesity and disease that most other civilized countries don't have. (Hence a large chunk of money spend curing people who cause their own problems.)

Don't even get me started on the food industry. I admit I like to eat fast food and hostess style snacks every once in a while but good god we have a huge problem as a country that Obama could address instead of making it seem like we don't know where our health problems are coming from.

I have already started seeing commercials fighting the proposed 3c per coke tax to help pay for health care. It's kindof an interesting premise and it has some interesting sides lining up on each side. On one hand, you basically have people having to pay additional for their "bad habits" but on the other, is it some sort of intrusive government "interference"?

SI

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

#1: I agree

#2: Why not just drag all the fatties out into the street and shoot them? But why stop there? What about people who are genetically predisposed to heart disease? Or diabetes? Do you know how much of our healthcare costs go to pay for people with diabetes?

Don't worry. Obama already has the Death Doctors lined up.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by cartman

H.R.3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Thanks for the link.

No real surprises or eye-openers that I could see.

Originally Posted by H.R.3200

(1)reduce payments to hospitals to account for excess readmissions;

Anybody know what this means? In my (admitted) distrust of government...this sounds like a way of trying to make hospitals accountable but just ends up requiring patients to stay longer. Thus (a)increasing costs or (b) requiring longer waits due to too many people being left in the hospital because they'll get paid more if they just keep people than if they release and readmit.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Don't worry. Obama already has the Death Doctors lined up.

I think we need more information about these death panels!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

SI

[CamEdwards]

Not to worry... Obama says that private insurance plans aren't going to be phased out.

Obama sought to dispel talk that his ultimate goal is a single-payer federal health care system, like that in countries such as Canada.

He also disputed the notion that adding a government-run insurance plan into a menu of options from which people could pick would drive private insurers out of business, in effect making the system single-payer by default.

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Uhh... you might want to massage that message a little more, Mr. President.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Uhh... you might want to massage that message a little more, Mr. President.

That's funny.

Maybe "government healthcare" will just become the really, really, really expensive version of public defenders - where you go when you have absolutely no other option.

Which on its own isn't an offensive idea, if it was cost-appropriate for that purpose.

[Flasch186]

so the opponents will start to say:

"Yeah y'know he's right. The insurance companies will prosper under such a plan and the Gov't option will be shit so we shouldnt support this change."

instead they will use the above in conjunction with also, depending on the audience, going with the:

"The insurance companies wont be able to compete with the Gov't plan. The Gov't option will always squeeze out private companies."

So you get to have both the cake and the fork too!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by molson

That's funny.

Maybe "government healthcare" will just become the really, really, really expensive version of public defenders - where you go when you have absolutely no other option.

Which on its own isn't an offensive idea, if it was cost-appropriate for that purpose.

Given the dearth of public defenders (and prosecutors) in this country, I'd actually much prefer to see a few billion dollars used to hire more so we could cut down on the number of plea bargains. If we want to talk about broken systems, I think the criminal justice system is far more broken than health care.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so the opponents will start to say:

"Yeah y'know he's right. The insurance companies will prosper under such a plan and the Gov't option will be shit."

instead they will use the above in conjunction with also, depending on the audience, going with the:

"The insurance companies wont be able to compete with the Gov't plan. The Gov't option will always squeeze out private companies."

So you get to have both the cake and the fork too!

Hey, not my fault the President used a really bad example to promote his ideal system. Take it up with the man in the Oval Office.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So you get to have both the cake and the fork too!

Isn't that exactly what's Obama's doing with that quote? He tells us that the government is the answer to our problems, but don't worry about private companies, because they're better run than government agencies. Huh?

[Flasch186]

well which one is it, though?

Will the new govt plan be like the USPS and thus private insurers will do great

OR

Will it squeeze out the insurers since they wont be able to compete?

--

Mol his quote is the former so insurance companies should love the new plan right (If change is needed which a large, VAST, majority of the country agrees is needed)? However I hear the opposite, they wont be able to compete with the gorilla in the room.

Maybe Obama is wrong with his example but I'd like to know which side of the coin the opposition wants to place their bets on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

(If change is needed which a large, VAST, majority of the country agrees is needed)?

Then again, the vast majority of the country is too fucking stupid to come in out of the rain, so I'm not sure that's exactly a standard to base massive government intrusion on.

[Flasch186]

At least I use 'Vast' when empirically it should be used instead of some who use it at 50%+1

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then again, the vast majority of the country is too fucking stupid to come in out of the rain, so I'm not sure that's exactly a standard to base massive government intrusion on.

aaah but isn't that all dependent on which side of the fence you're on?

i'd argue that the vast majority of the country finally woke up from their collective stupidity and came in out of the rain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

aaah but isn't that all dependent on which side of the fence you're on? i'd argue that the vast majority of the country finally woke up from their collective stupidity and came in out of the rain.

I wasn't saying a thing about any election past, present, or future.

I've just been to Kroger, my opinion of humanity is not even at it's usual lofty levels right now.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I wasn't saying a thing about any election past, present, or future.

I've just been to Kroger, my opinion of humanity is not even at it's usual lofty levels right now.

you know you and me share that in common.

honestly, with the exception of my close family and my single-handful (less than 5) friends, I pretty much could do without the rest of humanity.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then again, the vast majority of the country is too fucking stupid to come in out of the rain, so I'm not sure that's exactly a standard to base massive government intrusion on.

It's your party that is made up of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Dems have some loons too, but that's still pretty bad when most of the party base thinks the Flinstones was a documentary.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

At least I use 'Vast' when empirically it should be used instead of some who use it at 50%+1

No offense Flasch, but I wouldn't start bragging about your mastery of the English language quite yet.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

well which one is it, though?

Will the new govt plan be like the USPS and thus private insurers will do great

OR

Will it squeeze out the insurers since they wont be able to compete?

The vast number of regular citizens use the USPS and it gets their mail delivered and pretty efficiently for the most part. Businesses with different requirements/needs etc. use FedEx UPS (e.g. I don't think they can even deliver regular mail for 44 cents each).

His example does not make the proposed public option invalid/worthless, he just did not present the context well.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

Couldn't we try simpler and less costly approaches to fixing it though?

Alternative Solution 1: (Dream scenario) Promote healthy living programs for a fraction of the cost we are about to spend. Yes there are healthy people getting sick but I think it is the 300-400 pound and out of shape people that are taking up a disproportionate amount of the system's resources.

Alternative Solution 2: Make the new government system cost more for 400 pound people, drug addicts, smokers, mountain climbers, etc. This is a free country sure but if my tax dollars are being spent I want some accountability.

Alternative Solution 3: I have mentioned this earlier in this thread. Go to a nationwide health savings account system. My work has this and amazingly people don't go to the doctor for bumps and bruises and sniffles when it is "their money" being spent. And while a doctor may tell someone else to have an MRI, people at my work ask how much it is going to cost and if there are alternatives. Hence a form of free market capitalism actually taking place.

Of course all of these proposals would require people to actually contribute something instead of just getting something for free. What was it that Kennedy said about government?

Specific to the 40M+ that don't have insurance for various reasons (most of it probably economic), how do any of the 3 options help them?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's your party that is made up of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Dems have some loons too, but that's still pretty bad when most of the party base thinks the Flinstones was a documentary.

But in John's party, you won't find too many self-proclaimed smart people saying it's murder to eat eggs but it's fine to destroy a human embryo three months before it's born.

Seriously, at least half of your arguments end up with (or start out at) "Well your side has the crazy religious folks!" Sure, you throw in the caveat of "Dems have some loons too" to give you cover, but you don't give a rats ass about that.

The Democratic party is the party of identity politics. How many different "Hyphenated-Americans for Obama" bumper stickers did the campaign print up? One of the benefits of that is that the nutballs tend to be dispersed among the various interest groups. Still, if you add up all the different nutballs in the Democratic party, I'm fairly certain it'd be roughly equal to the number of Republican wingnuts.

To put it another way, if the nation had elected John McCain and Sarah Palin, conservatives would be writing in this thread about the "birthers" like Andrew Sullivan, who just wouldn't let go of his theory that Trig Palin wasn't really the Vice-President's son. The same hard-core nutballs on the left that were talking about this pre-election would still be going at it just as hard. And people like JPhillips or Flasch would be making very calm and rational arguments about why things like this need to be fully investigated, because this woman may running for president four years from now. The sides would be flipped, but we'd still be arguing about the dumbest shit possible.

RM, you seem to have a very big problem with people who have fundamentalist religious beliefs. In fact, if you were this freaked out about gay people, I'd call you a homophobe. If you were this obsessed with making cracks about black people, I'd call you a racist. You seem to be less of an atheist than you are simply anti-Christian. There are millions of Americans who believe that the rock in their garden cannot be more than 6,000 years old. There are also millions of Americans who believe that the rock in their garden has mystical healing powers. Maybe that doesn't offend your sensibilities the way fundamentalist Christianity does, but for cryin' out loud not everything has to be spun back towards a "fundies are bad" message.

Whew. Sorry about the rant.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Alternative Solution 2: Make the new government system cost more for 400 pound people, drug addicts, smokers, mountain climbers, etc. This is a free country sure but if my tax dollars are being spent I want some accountability.

If this happened it would require an ADA-like effort. If people were going to be penalized for their choices it would have to be made certain that they had equal opportunity to other/healthier choices. Such as having large chain grocery stores within reach of every person, and being the same relative price.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree that there are issues. But change for the sake of change is not a wise thing to do.

IMO, I think its messed up enough where there should be significant change.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The vast number of regular citizens use the USPS and it gets their mail delivered and pretty efficiently for the most part. Businesses with different requirements/needs etc. use FedEx UPS (e.g. I don't think they can even deliver regular mail for 44 cents each).

His example does not make the proposed public option invalid/worthless, he just did not present the context well.

The US Postal Service is running well in the red right now and has recently discussed switching to a 5-day a week delivery system. They also are looking at shutting down 700 post offices around the country. They are hardly an example of a well-run government enterprise... in large part because of the retiree health pension plans they're forced to pay into. In other words, the government agency is losing money every year because of the unsustainable cost of its health care plan.

It's kinda funny... when I first saw the Obama quote I just thought it was amusing. After doing a little bit of research, it's actually a much bigger gaffe.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But in John's party, you won't find too many self-proclaimed smart people saying it's murder to eat eggs but it's fine to destroy a human embryo three months before it's born.

Seriously, at least half of your arguments end up with (or start out at) "Well your side has the crazy religious folks!" Sure, you throw in the caveat of "Dems have some loons too" to give you cover, but you don't give a rats ass about that.

The Democratic party is the party of identity politics. How many different "Hyphenated-Americans for Obama" bumper stickers did the campaign print up? One of the benefits of that is that the nutballs tend to be dispersed among the various interest groups. Still, if you add up all the different nutballs in the Democratic party, I'm fairly certain it'd be roughly equal to the number of Republican wingnuts.

To put it another way, if the nation had elected John McCain and Sarah Palin, conservatives would be writing in this thread about the "birthers" like Andrew Sullivan, who just wouldn't let go of his theory that Trig Palin wasn't really the Vice-President's son. The same hard-core nutballs on the left that were talking about this pre-election would still be going at it just as hard. And people like JPhillips or Flasch would be making very calm and rational arguments about why things like this need to be fully investigated, because this woman may running for president four years from now. The sides would be flipped, but we'd still be arguing about the dumbest shit possible.

RM, you seem to have a very big problem with people who have fundamentalist religious beliefs. In fact, if you were this freaked out about gay people, I'd call you a homophobe. If you were this obsessed with making cracks about black people, I'd call you a racist. You seem to be less of an atheist than you are simply anti-Christian. There are millions of Americans who believe that the rock in their garden cannot be more than 6,000 years old. There are also millions of Americans who believe that the rock in their garden has mystical healing powers. Maybe that doesn't offend your sensibilities the way fundamentalist Christianity does, but for cryin' out loud not everything has to be spun back towards a "fundies are bad" message.

Whew. Sorry about the rant.

Jon said that there are a lot of stupid people out there and the direction of those comments have been toward the left side of the aisle. I'm simply pointing out that his side of the fence has an awful lot of people that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I don't have a problem with religious people. Pray to whatever you want in the sky and do whatever ceremonies you want. I have a problem when their beliefs get thrust into policy. I don't want people who believe cancer can be cured by praying real hard deciding our health care situation. Just as I wouldn't want a high school dropout running our Treasury Department.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Jon said that there are a lot of stupid people out there and the direction of those comments have been toward the left side of the aisle.

Did you happen to catch the part that followed about Kroger? DT did and he seemed to get the anti-political nature of the remark. But that wouldn't serve your purpose to acknowledge.

I'm simply pointing out that his side of the fence has an awful lot of people that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Nah, you're just showing yourself for the bigoted SOB you are. But hey, you wouldn't be a challenge to my own faith (or more accurately such a challenge for me to live up to my faith) if you were anything else. If it's true that everybody has a purpose, perhaps I've found yours.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Jon said that there are a lot of stupid people out there and the direction of those comments have been toward the left side of the aisle. I'm simply pointing out that his side of the fence has an awful lot of people that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I don't have a problem with religious people. Pray to whatever you want in the sky and do whatever ceremonies you want. I have a problem when their beliefs get thrust into policy. I don't want people who believe cancer can be cured by praying real hard deciding our health care situation. Just as I wouldn't want a high school dropout running our Treasury Department.

I don't know that I've seen a single sign promoting prayer over healthcare, but perhaps you could point me to one. I do know that by your standard, any person who is a pacifist for religious reasons should be ignored when they're talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though. After all, they're thrusting their religious beliefs into policy, right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't want people who believe cancer can be cured by praying real hard deciding our health care situation. .

I'm curious if it freaks you out that we have a president that prayed, in a private written prayer that was stolen and leaked, for god to protect his family, and to make him an instrument of god's will. Should that kind of person be running the country? He's trying to carry out god's will! I'm just trying to see if it's an anti-religion thing or just a pro-Obama thing we're dealing with.

Of course, nobody's even talking about religion and its role in healthcare, and I don't think anyone is opposing this particular plan on religious grounds, so I don't even know what that was all about. Is there a particular opponent of this plan that you think is trying to force fundamental religion into the equation, or is simple the label of Christian enough? And wouldn't that include Obama?

It's just more generalizations. I don't think think the world is 6,000 years old and I'm concerned about the current healthcare plan.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't want people who believe cancer can be cured by praying real hard deciding our health care situation.

BTW, this was totally going to be in Bush's health-care overhaul as the "faith-based option". As I understand it, you'd even get a tax credit for prayer beads as medical expenses.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm curious if it freaks you out that we have a president that prayed, in a private written prayer that was stolen and leaked, for god to protect his family, and to make him an instrument of god's will. Should that kind of person be running the country? He's trying to carry out god's will! I'm just trying to see if it's an anti-religion thing or just a pro-Obama thing we're dealing with.

Of course, nobody's even talking about religion and its role in healthcare, and I don't think anyone is opposing this particular plan on religious grounds, so I don't even know what that was all about. Is there a particular opponent of this plan that you think is trying to force fundamental religion into the equation, or is simple the label of Christian enough? And wouldn't that include Obama?

It's just more generalizations. I don't think think the world is 6,000 years old and I'm concerned about the current healthcare plan.

As I said, my comment wasn't initially about health care. Jon has made numerous cracks about how everyone on the left and anyone who voted for Obama is an idiot. I simply was pointing out that the base of his party believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Take from that what you want.

Religion has played a large role in the debate. Two of the largest Christian organizations have vehemently opposed Obama's plan and spread disinformation about euthanasia and more (Family Research and CCA). The Liberty Counsel (part of Falwell's group) was the group that sent out that viral e-mail about how old people and the disabled will be killed, forced abortions for families, and more. These groups have been all over the TV networks this past week.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that are against the costs of the health care bill (like myself), but the stories about death panels and other moral issues have been put out by religious organizations.

Heck, MBBF's talking point of the day is religiously motivated.

Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[miked]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

BTW, this was totally going to be in Bush's health-care overhaul as the "faith-based option". As I understand it, you'd even get a tax credit for prayer beads as medical expenses.

That is funny.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

BTW, this was totally going to be in Bush's health-care overhaul as the "faith-based option". As I understand it, you'd even get a tax credit for prayer beads as medical expenses.

No, but he did stop funding on embryonic stem cell research. An important area of science that could save many lives. He helped push to make it tougher to acquire Plan B. He also was a proponent of intelligent design which is dangerous for the long term development of our scientific and medical research.

He did set back aspects of medicine and science for his faith.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, but he did stop funding on embryonic stem cell research. An important area of science that could save many lives. He helped push to make it tougher to acquire Plan B. He also was a proponent of intelligent design which is dangerous for the long term development of our scientific and medical research.

He did set back aspects of medicine and science for his faith.

Since you must have missed the serious comment and read the joke instead, I'll repeat myself:

I don't know that I've seen a single sign promoting prayer over healthcare, but perhaps you could point me to one. I do know that by your standard, any person who is a pacifist for religious reasons should be ignored when they're talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though. After all, they're thrusting their religious beliefs into policy, right?

And don't get me started on those 19th century wackos who believed in abolition on religious grounds.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Since you must have missed the serious comment and read the joke instead, I'll repeat myself:

And don't get me started on those 19th century wackos who believed in abolition on religious grounds.

I agree with your statements about pacifism. Policy should be made in respects to the best interest of the people. Not to justify one's own moral beliefs.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No offense Flasch, but I wouldn't start bragging about your mastery of the English language quite yet.

none taken, im a master of nothing.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

BTW, this was totally going to be in Bush's health-care overhaul as the "faith-based option". As I understand it, you'd even get a tax credit for prayer beads as medical expenses.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with your statements about pacifism. Policy should be made in respects to the best interest of the people. Not to justify one's own moral beliefs.

In the case of abolition (and civil rights in the 1950's), the argument over who comprised "the people" was largely the basis of two competing schools of moral/religious beliefs. What then?

[Galaxy]

Is Obama way off here?

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F08%2F11%2Fmore-obama-my-plan-might-stop-doctors-from-cutting-off-your-foot%2F&feature=player_embedded

Also, did the government just take over the student loan industry?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ent-loans.aspx

It's a confusing industry. Can someone explain it a little more?

[miked]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Is Obama way off here?

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F08%2F11%2Fmore-obama-my-plan-might-stop-doctors-from-cutting-off-your-foot%2F&feature=player_embedded

Also, did the government just take over the student loan industry?

Big changes ahead for student loans - MSN Money

It's a confusing industry. Can someone explain it a little more?

Word, the government needs to take over the student loan business. My Stafford loans rocked. I tried to go the private route initially, but there's a ton of really shady, loosely regulated loans and companies out there. Some of these kids get little help from their parents or an adult and get taken to town. The way college costs are ballooning, I'd much rather have a government student loan bank than a bunch of private companies giving out T-shirts and coffee mugs for signing up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Heck, MBBF's talking point of the day is religiously motivated.

Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

So I make a comment that people should listen to some of these meetings in their entirety to see that there are a lot of people who have good questions that merit discussion and I cite Arlen Specter's comments at the end of his meeting that he was impressed with the well-informed questions during the meeting. As a result of these two comments, I'm endorsing the thoughts of a nut job who snuck in a rant? If anything, my comment to listen to the entirety of the meeting and take in ALL the opinions went right over your head.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I was wondering about the AARP support claim yesterday from Obama. They may yet endorse a final bill at some point, but right now, they're not going to give any nod until the Medicare borrowing is removed and a final version of the bill is selected.

Obama Claim of AARP Endorsement 'Inaccurate'

[Flasch186]

MBBF, good for you to be on it yesterday....you scooped the news agencies AND all the blog sites out there. Its amazing that the blogs, pundits, news, and talking points for the GOP come from you and not vice versa. That being said, I cant find where the AARP supports any bill in congress at this time so you may be right about Obama and that portion of the speech/townhall.

AARP tells Obama: No health plan endorsement yet


By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Tue Aug 11, 6:32 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A group usually seen as one of Barack Obama's allies in the health care debate — AARP — says the president went too far Tuesday when he said the seniors lobby had endorsed the legislation pending in Congress.

AARP is sensitive to the issue because polls show that Medicare beneficiaries are worried their health care program will be cut to subsidize coverage for the uninsured.

At the town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama said, "We have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." He added, "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare."

But Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

Like Obama, AARP wants action this year to cover the uninsured and restrain health care costs, but the organization has refrained from endorsing legislation. Nelson said AARP would not endorse a bill that reduces Medicare benefits.

A spokesman said the Medicare cuts that have been proposed so far would not affect benefits.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So I make a comment that people should listen to some of these meetings in their entirety to see that there are a lot of people who have good questions that merit discussion and I cite Arlen Specter's comments at the end of his meeting that he was impressed with the well-informed questions during the meeting. As a result of these two comments, I'm endorsing the thoughts of a nut job who snuck in a rant? If anything, my comment to listen to the entirety of the meeting and take in ALL the opinions went right over your head.

No. I didn't say you endorsed anyone. Some asked where religion was in any of the debates and I was posting evidence that it's at the forefront of the debate. Wasn't saying anything about you, just the story.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Word, the government needs to take over the student loan business. My Stafford loans rocked. I tried to go the private route initially, but there's a ton of really shady, loosely regulated loans and companies out there. Some of these kids get little help from their parents or an adult and get taken to town. The way college costs are ballooning, I'd much rather have a government student loan bank than a bunch of private companies giving out T-shirts and coffee mugs for signing up.

I got really hammered by a company when I was young. They made it seem like they were part of the government. Had official seals and a name that was government sounding (Something like United States Loan Association, I can't remember it off the top of my head). I was 19 at the time so I wasn't at that stage in life where I realized everyone was trying to fuck you over. Got my loans that semester through them and found out later it had all these loopholes and fine print that I don't even think a lawyer could figure out.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Also, did the government just take over the student loan industry?

Big changes ahead for student loans - MSN Money

It's a confusing industry. Can someone explain it a little more?

Sounds like a good change. Saves taxpayers cash and stops giving banks (more) free money.

Lenders worry that the savings will be used to plug other budget gaps rather than to fund additional higher education financing. Already, Congress' plan dramatically would cut the level of Pell Grant entitlements envisioned in the Obama administration's proposal to address the issue of who should be in the student lending market. Under that plan, less than half the savings would have gone toward that grant measure, with the other money going toward other purposes.

I love the bank speak of 'You know how we were overcharging almost $10B per year in debt to young borrowers? You aren't going to turn that 100% back into grants and instead paying off other parts of the budget so you're just screwing people!'

No, if you hadn't been badly screwing people or even screwing them less in the first place, you'd still be in control.

Meanwhile, many lenders argue that with only direct lending, students would get less in the way of services. "We offer the ability to maintain the diversity needed to keep competition up and pressure on other lenders," says Christopher Chapman, CEO of Access Group, nonprofit student lender in Wilmington, Del. "We also provide the value-added services," such as financial education.

Banks have their own turf to protect. The legislation means not only lost profits for banks now, but also a tougher time courting young borrowers in the future. In the past, college loans provided lenders easy entrée to establish a relationship with a future customer.

The only services I got were lots of junk mail and no notice when my loans were about to reset up 2% from about 5% to 7%. I only found that out from all the junk mail from refinancers (one of whom I took up on their offer so I locked in at 5.25% for the life of my loan, which I just paid off last month. Huzzah!) and a story on NPR.


SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No. I didn't say you endorsed anyone. Some asked where religion was in any of the debates and I was posting evidence that it's at the forefront of the debate. Wasn't saying anything about you, just the story.

Which is totally incorrect. A nut job ranting at Specter's odds of going to hell doesn't mean that religion is at the forefront of the health care debate. It just means that a nut job told Specter to go to hell.

[DaddyTorgo]

i must confess that i didn't see any of obama's townhall...i didn't dvr it and last night i had a sick puppy (ate something bad) and didn't think to look for it. and i didn't even get to see a recap on any of the shows, so i don't really know how it went.

*shrugs*

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i must confess that i didn't see any of obama's townhall...i didn't dvr it and last night i had a sick puppy (ate something bad) and didn't think to look for it. and i didn't even get to see a recap on any of the shows, so i don't really know how it went.

*shrugs*

Well, there's two more scheduled for today. Fire up that DVR! I can't think we'll hear much that was different from yesterday other than clarifying the AARP comment.

[Flasch186]

I noticed no answer as to whether the Insurance companies could compete against the gov't plan (a la UPS/FedEx) or not as claimed in other arguments. I want to know where the bets are.