Robert Redford on CNN: Obama is not up to the challenge of leading this country

[septimus]

With my Internet connection, it’s easiest to watch YouTube. Is this the interview in question?

@Bullitt

Not exactly the words he used, but that is an accurate paraphrasing of what he said.

“Accurate” for very small values of “accurate” ?

That posters on this intelligent message board are treating the spin in thread title as valid, and treating Redford’s words as an indictment of Obama rather than his opposition, demonstrates the unfortunate domination of spin over fact in American political thought.

[DSeid]

dropzone flattery will get you everywhere.

Truth be told, while some posters seeing that as somehow Redford saying Obama is not up to the job (rather than critical of the opposition) is indeed delusional, I am a bit surprised that Redford is still so supportive. Given that Redford is focused on environmental issues I would have expected him to have been expressing disappointment that Obama has, from a strong environmentalist POV, done so little for the cause and is likely going to approve Keystone.

[Chimera]

@PastTense

3. Obamacare. He could have compromised with the Republicans to get some significant improvements over the status quo. Instead he comes up with something which the majority of Americans don’t approve of and he doesn’t even care enough about the legislation to ensure that the website is working–even though he had 4 years to set it up.

Except that a significant portion of the people who don’t support it aren’t on the side of the Republicans on this. They don’t support it because they don’t think it goes far enough!

The rest, well, we’ve had enough threads on this and if you’re still chasing that chicken…

[BigT]

@septimus

That posters on this intelligent message board are treating the spin in thread title as valid, and treating Redford’s words as an indictment of Obama rather than his opposition, demonstrates the unfortunate domination of spin over fact in American political thought.

You must be reading a different thread than I am. The very first reply is someone asking for what he said, followed by people making general comments about the idea followed by someone pointing out that the OP was inaccurate. I don’t see anyone in the thread treating the spin as accurate.

[BigT]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

The only reason why the majority of Americans are against it is because of ceaseless right-wing propaganda denouncing it as “socialism” and instituting “death-panels”. Indeed, the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act have the support of the majority of the public.

That no longer seems to be the only reason. A lot of people are being screwed by their current insurance since the protection against losing your plan did not seem to work. My sister now has a $3000 deductible before she can even go see her doctor. For everday illnesses, she believes she might as well not have healthcare, and plans to do what a lot of people without insurance do and get amoxicilin from pills used to disinfect fish tanks.

I’m actually angry at both sides right now, as neither seemed to make this an issue. I expected costs to go up, but not so high that people with insurance might as well not have it. I defended Obamacare precisely against the stuff you mentioned without realizing real possible problems.

Making people who didn’t have healthcare pay a small fee if they don’t get it is one thing. Doubling or tripling the medical expenses of people with existing plans is another. And everything on the exchange seems to be priced even higher. And I hope that’s not because the subsidies (not available to people who have even the worst possible employer insurance) inflate the prices, but I can definitely see the argument.

The idea of Obamacare is great, but the actual execution sucks horribly. The website debacle does seem to have actually been a portent of what was to come.

[filmore]

@BigT

That no longer seems to be the only reason. A lot of people are being screwed by their current insurance since the protection against losing your plan did not seem to work. My sister now has a $3000 deductible before she can even go see her doctor. For everday illnesses, she believes she might as well not have healthcare, and plans to do what a lot of people without insurance do and get amoxicilin from pills used to disinfect fish tanks.

But that should be the way insurance works. It pays for the big things that would wipe you out. For any minor expense, you pay for it yourself. I’m guessing that your sister’s old plan pretty much only paid for the minor expenses and she would have been out-of-luck if she got something big like cancer. It would be like having car insurance which only covered tire damage and broken windshields but didn’t cover an actual accident.

The $3000 is a lot, but likely routine visits are covered. If she gets a cold, she can go to the doctor and just pay a small copay. It’s only if she starts seeing specialists that she’ll have to start paying that deductible. But then at least she has a maximum ($3000) she’ll have to pay, which should be manageable for most people.

[JRDelirious]

@filmore

But that should be the way insurance works. It pays for the big things that would wipe you out. For any minor expense, you pay for it yourself.
[…]
The $3000 is a lot, but likely routine visits are covered. If she gets a cold, she can go to the doctor and just pay a small copay. It’s only if she starts seeing specialists that she’ll have to start paying that deductible. But then at least she has a maximum ($3000) she’ll have to pay, which should be manageable for most people.

Which was one of the arguments for the private-mandate model as one of the 1990s Republican alternatives vs. the Clinton-Era healthcare proposal – that people should be aware that their health care actually costs something, and “have skin in the game”, and if you let us get it free or cheap through a single-payer universal access system we’d just use it irresponsibly.

Guaranteed no-refusal yet still private-commercial insurance means you may be out more out-of-pocket at the starting line. But if what people want is to be covered from incurring any significant (even if non-bankrupting) expenses from day one, then maybe what they want IS universal healthcare as known to much of the Western World, which was demonized in US public opinion under both Clinton and Obama.

[nevadaexile]

Robert Redford’s opinion is worth what you’d pay to hear it.

While I serious issues with some of things that the President has done he has:

[ol]
[li]Started the US off on the road to universal healthcare[/li][li]End the war in Iraq[/li][li]Helped the economy along the road towards improvement[/li][li]Tried to unite the nation[/li][li]Ending the war in Afghanistan[/li][/ol]

All in less than eight years
That’s more than some people (looking at you GW Bush) did in two terms.

Mr. Redford would do well to concentrate his efforts on making certain that a better quality of film comes out his Sundance Film Festival. Some real stinkers have come out of there over the past few years.