The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well the private insurance industry has helped us have double the health care costs of nearly every major country in the world. Why do you have this idea that private means cheaper in health care? Especially considering these companies are relative monopolies in their regions.

At some point in time, this country is going to have to deal with the obesity/fast food/lack of exercise culture we've created for most of the 300+ million citizens we have. If this doesn't improve, no program will make a difference.

It's amazing to me that people think that switching to a government-run single payer system with little incentive for cost control, run by people trying to stay elected in congress and covering 40+ million people more than are currently covered will somehow significantly reduce the cost for heath care.

Health care is not for healthy people, it's for sick people. And, the ugly truth is the traditional American lifestyle leads to significantly more sick people than other cultures. Add that to the problem of scope (10-times plus more people than Canada or other European countries) and you have a problem that is systemic to our culture and not just because drug companies and hospitals want to "stick it to use".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The cuts were to get them to vote for the final bill to call it "bipartisan", NOT to get them to vote for cloture. If the later was what was intended, then I have a far lesser view of the Obama Administration's political acumen than I previous had.

It wasn't just to get those three Republicans. Nelson, Landrieu, McCaskill and Lieberman were reluctant about one trillion also. From the Huffington Post:

The final package, said Nelson, is likely to be significantly lower. "I think it will be below 800 [billion]. For me it's not symbolism, it's an economic matter. At some point it's just too big," he said. Asked by the Huffington Post if that meant he thought 800 billion was the specific point at which it was too big, he said, "It's whatever gets 60 votes, 61 votes."

[flere-imsaho]

LOL

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's amazing to me that people think that switching to a government-run single payer system with little incentive for cost control, run by people trying to stay elected in congress and covering 40+ million people more than are currently covered will somehow significantly reduce the cost for heath care.

I guess the bottom line is it works in other countries.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

At some point in time, this country is going to have to deal with the obesity/fast food/lack of exercise culture we've created for most of the 300+ million citizens we have. If this doesn't improve, no program will make a difference.

It's amazing to me that people think that switching to a government-run single payer system with little incentive for cost control, run by people trying to stay elected in congress and covering 40+ million people more than are currently covered will somehow significantly reduce the cost for heath care.

Health care is not for healthy people, it's for sick people. And, the ugly truth is the traditional American lifestyle leads to significantly more sick people than other cultures. Add that to the problem of scope (10-times plus more people than Canada or other European countries) and you have a problem that is systemic to our culture and not just because drug companies and hospitals want to "stick it to use".

Obesity aside, we pay more for basic features. We pay more for prescriptions than just about every other country in the world. We also pay more for basic tests. MRI here can be thousands while in Japan it's under $100. Doctors, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies have created all the rules to milk the most out of the consumer in this country. Our country built our system for them, not us.

[Arles]

Hey, if you want to take a look at billed costs to insurance companies, I'm all for it. I think there's a lot of room there for improvement. One of the guys I work with had the option of paying $2500 cash for a procedure his dad had or see if the insurance would cover 80%. The problem was if he didn't pay cash, they would bill the insurance company $9,000 for it and he would be stuck paying what wasn't covered. The fact that the same procedure is $2500 without insurance that is $9,000 with insurance tells me there are some things that can be done here. But, I don't know that you need to switch over to a public system to deal with it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I guess the bottom line is it works in other countries.

Which country has 300 million people, with 2/3 of their adults listed as obese? If that country has a better plan, let's check it out!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hey, if you want to take a look at billed costs to insurance companies, I'm all for it. I think there's a lot of room there for improvement. One of the guys I work with had the option of paying $2500 cash for a procedure his dad had or see if the insurance would cover 80%. The problem was if he didn't pay cash, they would bill the insurance company $9,000 for it and he would be stuck paying what wasn't covered. The fact that the same procedure is $2500 without insurance that is $9,000 with insurance tells me there are some things that can be done here. But, I don't know that you need to switch over to a public system to deal with it.

Most of the time the opposite is true. The uninsured are regularly billed far more than the insured.

[JPhillips]

At least twelve people outside of Obama's event today in AZ had guns including at least one assault rifle. Will any GOP elected official dampen the increasing rage on the right?

[Flasch186]

More disappointing to me is that the GOP seems to be 'unmoved' by the talk of a compromise from the left and is, IMO, IMO, only looking for the 'win'.

I wonder if the left will try to push the 'see we tried to compromise and they didnt want to' card. sigh.

[DaddyTorgo]

what a frigging mess *sighs*

[DaddyTorgo]

fucking healthcare needs to be fucking fixed too. ugh

[Flasch186]

BTW, no one can argue about whether or not there is the possibility of danger or threat at the town halls now. Those pussies (/sarcasm) ought to be cancelling them when people start showing up with guns and semi automatic rifles. It's their right, and its the politicians right to avoid disaster.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At least twelve people outside of Obama's event today in AZ had guns including at least one assault rifle. Will any GOP elected official dampen the increasing rage on the right?

Here is the article on it:

Terms of Service

I'm all for being able to bear arms and protect your home. Never understood the "manliness" of walking around with a gun though. I mean how small does your dick have to be or what kind of a pussy would you have to be in a fight to carry one around with you everyday for protection?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Will any GOP elected official dampen the increasing rage on the right?

Outside of a few RINO's, I can't imagine any that don't want to be the target of the anger themselves nor want to put their re-election at risk.

Meanwhile, this has got to be one of the greatest pictures I've seen in my lifetime. Among my first thoughts (wrestling fans will get it) was "Why is Taz carrying a gun in Arizona".

[SirFozzie]

Gives new meaning to the phrase, BEat Him if you can, survive if he lets you.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

LOL

I enjoyed reading quite a few of those

SI

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First, I think Jesus could come down and say we need single-payer and Arles would find some way to weasel out of it. Not even dealing with the fact single-payer isn't the plan. Here's the plan in simple flow-chart form.

I guess we're to the point where we stop reading what each other write and stumble forward with our rally cries. I stated this new "non-public" plan is a step in the right direction and once I see more information on it - I very well may support it.

As to the question of "What would Jesus do?": I'm not a fan of a single payer plan. Numerous people in this thread have stated their desire to see a single payer plan (ie, other countries do it, why can't we?) and I have simply been responding. But I am nowhere near the health czar that you are, so maybe you can show me the virtues of a single payer system and force me to repent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for not getting some form of health care changes passed through Congress. It's awfully hard to blame the minority opposition for the lack of action when the Democrat aren't even able to provide a unified opinion at this point.

Some Key Democrats Say Public Option is Essential to Health-Care Reform - washingtonpost.com

Public Option Called Essential
Democratic Lawmakers Express Concern

By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Several leading Democrats voiced concern Monday about an apparent White House shift on health-care reform, objecting to signals from senior administration officials that they would abandon the idea of a government-run insurance plan if it lacked the backing to pass Congress.

In the Senate, where negotiations are now focused, John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) said that a public option, as the plan has become known, is "a must." Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said that "without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said that the plan will be included in whatever bill is voted on in the House. "There is strong support in the House for a public option," she said, though she did not demand that the administration express support for the idea.

One Democrat predicted that without the provision, the bill could lose as many as 100 votes in the chamber.

President Obama had pushed a nonprofit, government-sponsored insurance plan as an alternative to existing insurance companies, saying that a public program would compete with the industry and help reduce costs. Over the weekend, he minimized the importance of a public option, saying at an event in Colorado on Saturday that it was "just one sliver" of his overall effort to reduce health-care costs and expand coverage.

Two of his top advisers on Sunday reiterated that he is open to alternatives to a government plan, setting off a wave of reports about a White House shift and frustrating senior advisers.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking to reporters returning to Washington from Phoenix, said Obama has not shifted his position, suggesting that the president's support for a public option had never been absolute. "The goals are choice and competition. His preference is a public option. If there are other ideas, he's happy to look at them," Gibbs said. White House officials repeatedly denied that there was any new positioning on the provision, accusing the media of fabricating developments.

Three House committees and one Senate panel have passed versions of health-care legislation that contain a public option.

White House officials sought to reassure Democratic groups and activists that they did not intend to rule out the public option, a position they are able to maintain, for now, because no final version of the bill exists. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina told some groups involved in the effort that the administration's positions have not changed.

Democrats close to the White House said there is increasing pessimism about getting two Republicans who have been at the center of Senate Finance Committee negotiations -- Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.) -- to back the compromise measure that is expected to emerge from that panel. Those Democrats noted that dropping the public option may be necessary simply to win the votes of conservative Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), who has been wary of the provision.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said the union will continue pressing House and Senate negotiators to keep a public plan. "The only way to force real competition on the insurance companies is a strong public plan option," he said.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Obama could lose up to 100 Democratic votes in the House by abandoning the option.

"I know the trade the administration made is they have gotten two or three senators, but they have lost dozens of House members," Weiner said.

Democracy for America, a grass-roots group started by former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean and now run by his brother Jim, sent an e-mail to its supporters declaring "a healthcare bill without a public option is D.O.A. in the House. Period." Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of the most liberal House members, threatened to oppose the bill if it does not include a public option.

Conservative Democrats in the House and Senate have been vague about whether they will support such an option, and the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) made a statement Monday that largely echoed the White House language.

Reid "supports a public option in part because of the necessity to keep insurance companies in check," said spokesman Jim Manley. "However, he recognizes there are different proposals on the table that could accomplish that goal."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But, I do find it interesting that you think something that will cover less people, lower less costs, and have less leverage against the insurance companies is a "step in the right direction." Truly interesting.

This is why a public option (non co-op) is necessary. Cover more people, take more advantage of economies of scale to lower costs (less then true single-payer, but a step in the right direction), and have meaningful leverage against insurance companies.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for not getting some form of health care changes passed through Congress. It's awfully hard to blame the minority opposition for the lack of action when the Democrat aren't even able to provide a unified opinion at this point.

Some Key Democrats Say Public Option is Essential to Health-Care Reform - washingtonpost.com

I tend to agree at least to a point. Shameful.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's awfully hard to blame the minority opposition for the lack of action when the Democrat aren't even able to provide a unified opinion at this point.

Hush. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth already.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I tend to agree at least to a point. Shameful.

At this point, I'm not even sure the Republicans should be objecting in general. How are we to even know what they're objecting to when the Democrats aren't even sure which bill is going to be voted on? There's a wide difference between the multiple proposed bills at this point.

[miked]

Whether you're for public health care or not, or whatever these people are crying about, I really wish they'd leave their guns at home. I know it's some sort of constitutional right, but there can never be anything good coming from people shouting anti-Obama chants and carrying loaded firearms. All it takes is some crazies who aren't even carrying guns to some how get a hold of these. I can't understand what would inspire somebody to bring loaded assault rifles to a presidential rally...even if you're for gun rights.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by miked

Whether you're for public health care or not, or whatever these people are crying about, I really wish they'd leave their guns at home. I know it's some sort of constitutional right, but there can never be anything good coming from people shouting anti-Obama chants and carrying loaded firearms. All it takes is some crazies who aren't even carrying guns to some how get a hold of these. I can't understand what would inspire somebody to bring loaded assault rifles to a presidential rally...even if you're for gun rights.

I think the Secret Service (and by extension whoever gave them the order) is being far too permissive in allowing it. They had an ex secret service guy on one of the news shows last night and he said they can basically set whatever kind of policy they want - they could extend the security perimeter out as far as they wanted and make this a non-issue by saying "no firearms - loaded or unloaded, allowed inside this perimeter" but for whatever reason they aren't.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Whether you're for public health care or not, or whatever these people are crying about, I really wish they'd leave their guns at home. I know it's some sort of constitutional right, but there can never be anything good coming from people shouting anti-Obama chants and carrying loaded firearms. All it takes is some crazies who aren't even carrying guns to some how get a hold of these. I can't understand what would inspire somebody to bring loaded assault rifles to a presidential rally...even if you're for gun rights.

The problem with permitting it is that they'll continue to push that envelope. I'm not sure where the line is crossed and a crackdown has to be made. Of course, they'll then raise a fuss at that point. It's similar to the Black Panthers showing up at the polling stations in Philadelphia last November. It appears the administration is willing to turn the other cheek as long as there is no physical confrontation, which I'm not a big fan of personally. I'm for the right to carry weapons, but both of these instances obviously are intimidation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

I can't understand what would inspire somebody to bring loaded assault rifles to a presidential rally

Then you haven't been paying attention. The level of anger toward government continues to rise, particularly among people who may be inclined to do something more than put slogans on protest signs.

Yesterday's Arizona event was brilliantly conceived (and contrived for that matter) and you couldn't have bought a better picture than the one I posted. From a marketing standpoint that's one of the strongest images I've seen in years.

A little grudgingly, I'll give credit to the Secret Service and/or the administration (who could definitely influence how this is handled) for exercising some restraint. If they had gone hard at those folks, it would have ensured twice as many guns show up at the next opportunity & at some point it would backfire. Both sides really played their cards pretty well.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Arles

Which country has 300 million people, with 2/3 of their adults listed as obese? If that country has a better plan, let's check it out!

Even if there are significant differences, there are things we can learn. There are plenty of people who spend their days studying the root causes of the health disparities in the U.S.. Other countries have modeled some of the ways we could get to better health.

Some of the differences between our country and others are the causes for health differences, some are the effects. For example, the family medicine model is proven to be more effective than a high rate of specialists visits, and most European countries feature a much higher number of family physicians than we have.

There's no reason for us not to use other countries' examples to improve our health care. It's not like we're required to copy another model to the letter.

[flere-imsaho]

For a site that pretty much revolves around discussions on mathematical modeling and scalability (albeit in another forum now)....

[cartman]

People upset with the government who bring assault rifles to a rally are the same in my book as someone who can't get a girlfriend bringing rope and chloroform to a beauty pageant.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The problem with permitting it is that they'll continue to push that envelope. I'm not sure where the line is crossed and a crackdown has to be made. Of course, they'll then raise a fuss at that point. It's similar to the Black Panthers showing up at the polling stations in Philadelphia last November. It appears the administration is willing to turn the other cheek as long as there is no physical confrontation, which I'm not a big fan of personally. I'm for the right to carry weapons, but both of these instances obviously are intimidation.

thus you'll agree that your earlier insinuation that Congressman were simply using fear to cancel their town halls may have truly not been an excuse after all?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

I can't understand what would inspire somebody to bring loaded assault rifles to a presidential rally...even if you're for gun rights.

Being a raging pussy is one reason.

[flere-imsaho]

LOL... and... sigh:

I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

LOL... and... sigh:

eh, he has a point. Baucus is a tool of the healthcare industry and insurance groups and the fact that he's dictating this whole thing is ridiculous and is a huge fuck-up.

[flere-imsaho]

Grassley, one of the "Baucus 6", went on the Sunday talk shows and basically said that even if they put together a "bipartisan" agreement amongst the 6 of them, but it wasn't supported by a majority of Republicans, he'd vote against it. His own bill.

This is the game the GOP is playing on this issue, just as they have on multiple issues before. Spread disinformation, hew strictly to talking points, stoop to no level too low (i.e. armed intimidation and outright lies), and actively pretend that you're being bipartisan when you have no intention there either.

In this game Pelosi & Reid are completely out-manned, and it's showing, badly. The gloves should have been taken off a while ago.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah, Grassley's no saint in all this either. But man has this been bunglefucked probably beyond repair.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Grassley, one of the "Baucus 6", went on the Sunday talk shows and basically said that even if they put together a "bipartisan" agreement amongst the 6 of them, but it wasn't supported by a majority of Republicans, he'd vote against it. His own bill.

This is the game the GOP is playing on this issue, just as they have on multiple issues before. Spread disinformation, hew strictly to talking points, stoop to no level too low (i.e. armed intimidation and outright lies), and actively pretend that you're being bipartisan when you have no intention there either.

In this game Pelosi & Reid are completely out-manned, and it's showing, badly. The gloves should have been taken off a while ago.

But once again, this 'game' the GOP is playing wouldn't mean a hill of beans if the Democrats would bother to get their own party members on the same page. The Republicans should be little more than a 'vocal minority' at this point, but the disarray in the Democrats is allowing the Republicans to look like they have some form of control when they shouldn't have any.

[molson]

Both sides are trying to play politics. The Republicans aren't more evil just because they seem to be better at it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The Republican Party has always proven itself to be good at letting the Democrats self-destruct.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah, Grassley's no saint in all this either. But man has this been bunglefucked probably beyond repair.

Grassley's taking in just as much money as Baucus has.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But once again, this 'game' the GOP is playing wouldn't mean a hill of beans if the Democrats would bother to get their own party members on the same page. The Republicans should be little more than a 'vocal minority' at this point, but the disarray in the Democrats is allowing the Republicans to look like they have some form of control when they shouldn't have any.

amazingly I disagree and it's the exact same way I felt when the dems were the minority and got locked out. Just because the GOP is the minority doesnt, IMO, mean they shouldnt have any input or say in matters. I just wish they would be genuine in their opposition instead of viewing it as a game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Being a raging pussy is one reason.

I'm not too sure how that's your interpretation of a none too subtle reminder that that the right to bear arms gives a certain amount (albeit woefully insufficient) protection against the tyranny of government but ... okay, whatever works for you I guess.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ust because the GOP is the minority doesnt, IMO, mean they shouldnt have any input or say in matters.

America has voted Democrat though. Shouldn't that matter at all?

How far does this logic go? If the Democrats controlled 75% of both houses, do the Republicans still have to agree with everything? What if it was 100%? What if it's 60/20/20 with the emergence of a third party. Does everyone get a say?

Of course, ideally it wouldn't be viewed as 2 parties, but 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. Those are the 535 people that matter. Most of them, as far as I understand, feel a certain way about health care, and were elected by people that feel a certain way about health care, but they have to show deference to those who weren't voted in. Which is just weird.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But once again, this 'game' the GOP is playing wouldn't mean a hill of beans if the Democrats would bother to get their own party members on the same page. The Republicans should be little more than a 'vocal minority' at this point, but the disarray in the Democrats is allowing the Republicans to look like they have some form of control when they shouldn't have any.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

amazingly I disagree and it's the exact same way I felt when the dems were the minority and got locked out. Just because the GOP is the minority doesnt, IMO, mean they shouldnt have any input or say in matters. I just wish they would be genuine in their opposition instead of viewing it as a game.

I think you're both 50% right. The minority should have input/say in the matter, but if they're going to treat it like a "game" and not be genuine in their opposition than the majority should have their house in order enough to basically say to the American people "look - they're not engaging in a good faith effort to have actual input they're just screwing around so we're going to pass this thing anyways."

Both at fault.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I just wish they would be genuine in their opposition instead of viewing it as a game.

I'd say you're missing a big point here. The opposition seems quite genuine in many cases (whether the reason is highly philosophical or entirely pragmatic), it's how you effectively discomfit your opponent that's largely a game or maybe more accurately requires gamesmanship.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

amazingly I disagree and it's the exact same way I felt when the dems were the minority and got locked out. Just because the GOP is the minority doesnt, IMO, mean they shouldnt have any input or say in matters. I just wish they would be genuine in their opposition instead of viewing it as a game.

Good point. Probably should not have used the phrase "shouldn't have any (control)" or should have clarified that if the Democrats wanted to pass it on partisan lines, they could without concern about the minority opinion. Like I said before though, it's getting difficult to even figure out what to oppose due to the lack of a unified position by the Democrats.

[gstelmack]

If only we had a media that cared about exposing corruption and fraud and presenting facts to the American people rather than just spending all their time regurgitating press releases...

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Grassley's taking in just as much money as Baucus has.

Which is absolutely hilarious given what he did to an unnamed southern university. He's basically trying to lead the charge against drug company/university conflict of interest, all while on the take from lobbyists himself.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think you're both 50% right. The minority should have input/say in the matter, but if they're going to treat it like a "game" and not be genuine in their opposition than the majority should have their house in order enough to basically say to the American people "look - they're not engaging in a good faith effort to have actual input they're just screwing around so we're going to pass this thing anyways."

Both at fault.

Since when is there a need for a 'good faith effort' by anyone? Last I checked, anyone in Congress can sponsor a bill and put it up for a yea/nay vote. If it's a bill you agree with, you vote for it. If it's not, you don't vote for it. These claims that the Republicans somehow interfered with passage of Democrat-proposed legislation when they hold a wide majority aren't going to stand up at all, especially with Democrat leadership publicly feuding with each other on what should be in the bills.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If only we had a media that cared about exposing corruption and fraud and presenting facts to the American people rather than just spending all their time regurgitating press releases...

You say that as though there's a significant portion of the public that is more interested in the former than the latter. There isn't.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Last I checked, anyone in Congress can sponsor a bill and put it up for a yea/nay vote.

Wrong. Yes, anyone can sponsor a bill, but not just anyone can force a vote on the bill.