I’ve often heard that Obama was born in Kenya. That does not make it true.
I think he was talking more to Betsy but that’s still dam funny.
I thought it was a great speech for several reasons.
He called out a lie and also spoke directly to those political hacks who only want to halt the process rather than find solutions.
He spelled out some details for the listening audience. His promise that this bill would pay for itself is important because it allows any GOP member who wants to vote for it an open door as they promise to hold this admin accountable for this promise. It even allows the concerned public to do the same.
I really liked the moment when he acknowledge the work of certain republicans including John McCain who graciously stood and applauded his president. He clearly reached out and showed once again that he wants real solutions to real problems and welcomes conservative participation while clearly stating that we don’t have time or patience for partisan hackery.
I liked the emotional and moral appeal, the reference to TK which included the republicans he worked with. American Character. Thank you Ted. The Dems needed a good patriotic catch phrase of our own. I think that’s it.
I liked the assertion and show of strength at the end. We will not kick this can down the road, we will not fear the future we will shape it. I feel pretty sure something meaningful will pass even if progressives don’t get all they wanted. It’s a step in the right direction and we sure as hell need that.
Certainly tells a story.
In fact, it’s nice to see the story deviod of all the ideological clap-trap.
Both repubs and dems agree the present system is unsustainable. The insurance companies have raised rates so badly, that we can not possibly pay what insurance companies tack on every year. It will fall apart in the near future.
We have the 37th best health care in the world. That is not superb health care. We pay the most and get crap for it. Yet even that can not be sustained.
We have nearly 50 million uncovered. Men women and children without health care. That is good coverage.
A friend has lymphoma. The bank he works for is not keeping his job for him. The insurance company refuses to pay for imaging tests the doctor ordered. He is resigned to going bankrupt. Soon , he will have no insurance . His company will drop him. He will have no coverage and have to battle cancer at the same time. Yep, we have a fine system here.
First of all, I’m far from convinced we have the 37th best health care system in the world. All one has to do is look around here to see how one’s opinion of the health care system is skewed according to political ideology. Before I would accept that we are anywhere close to 37th, I’d have to become convinced that the finding was objective and comprehensive and free from some sort of political agenda.
Secondly, insurance companies have raised rates, not out of greed, but because the technology that has been developed which is so effective at diagnosing and treating illness is expensive and becoming more so with each new advance. Still, eventually there’s a breaking point and you can believe that insurance companies raise their rates only as necessary to cover increasing costs while still maintaining enough of a profit margin to stay in business. Insurance companies aren’t going to commit suicide by charging so much that no one can afford it or they’ll go out of business. Thus they have an incentive to make their insurance as affordable as possible.
Thirdly, your friend would be included in the group for whom I’ve already said some sort of program needs to be created to help, sort of like the food stamp program for people who can’t afford food. Programs can be created to assist those in dire straights without having the government becoming involved in everyone’s health care, as would inevitably be the case with the plans currently under consideration.
Further, 50 million people without coverage does not equate to 50 million people needing treatment. And of those needing treatment, the vast majority need only minor care. It’s not like 50 million people are dying in the streets because they have no coverage, so it seems to me some sort of assistance program for those without coverage would be less costly and far more desirable than a program that opens the door for universal, government provided and controlled health care for everyone.
People say the current plan under consideration is aimed at doing just that. But how can anyone know that when nobody knows which bills are going to make it through and what changes will be made in the meantime? Government always seeks to grow and to increase its power. It seeks to grow in order to make things easier for those who have to administer it and to increase funding, and it seeks power because then it’s easier to administer. People don’t like having to deal with hassles and the more power government has to say “This is what you get, take it or leave it,” the easier it is to function and the less hassles it has to put up with. Thus government health care will grow and morph into things not even under consideration now, just like has already happened with Social Security, Medicare, etc. Once these programs are in place they’re practically impossible to get rid of because, as poor as they are in funding and providing service, too many people become invested in them by virtue of forced participation, so they continue to grow and grow because that’s what government always seeks to do.
Again, our system works very well for most people. It isn’t necessary to have the government take over everything that has a problematic element. There are lots of options available for providing health care to those who need it – and for addressing the problems that exist within the current system – without screwing things up for everyone else.
This is your faith, and you are welcome to it, welcome to witness for your preferred dogma. Please consider that it is, in fact, just as I describe it, nothing more than a flat statement without any substantiation beyond your authority. With all due awe, I am unconvinced.
Says who? Where is it Written? Is “government” a discrete entity, with certain invariable qualities, regardless of the nature of that government? Is a government of the people, by and for…is that government precisely the same as an authoritarian tyranny, when it comes to this unvarying truth?
Your argument is based upon the bedrock, this absolute truth. But if that truth is not so, if that bedrock is only so much jello, then your arguments are nothing more than ducks breaking wind.
I submit that such is the case, unless you can answer the question: Says who?
(bolding mine)
This is where Obama is being terribly disingenous. Sure the plan doesn’t force you to change plans under penalty of law, but if it puts your current plan out of business because of a policy it creates, then it might as well have outlawed your plan.
But Obama is trying to make people think that their current insurance will continue as usual when that isn’t the case. If the plan is so good, then why can’t he be honest about it?
And/or, the fewer hassles we the people have to put up with, if the ratio of private insurance company horror stories (many) to Medicare horror stories (few) is any guide.
So your argument is you won’t believe any countering opinions.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems, by Rank This is the ratings by the W.H.O.
Well, if it’s true that the industry has a margin of 3%, I am sure even you would agree that it is not obscene.
Universal health care - Wikipedia And a list of countries that offer health care to their citizens. Big ones, small ones, rich ones and poor ones.
If that’s because the plan you get instead is better, then what’s the problem? It’s won the war of the market.
You’re claiming he’s being dishonest about not admitting something you’re making up?
Better go look at what he’s actually said before you sink any deeper.
Oh, come on. Government always seeks to grow. How do I know? Because it always has. Bureaucrats are always looking to expand their fiefdoms. Public employee unions (a powerful lobby) always want more members. Every year the government is taking a higher and higher percent of the GDP. The “stimulus” package is the largest increase in governmental activity in history. Stop being disingenuous.
No, it hasn’t. Not when it is subsidized by taxpayers at the point of a gun. If the government opened an airline and undercut the private carriers by subsidizing costs out of the general fund, it would certainly put them out of business. Nobody can compete with an entity that can compel people who may not even use it, to pay for it. Fares on government air might be cheaper, but it would still cost more to run, and would be a terrible idea.
Heck, even with our budget crisis in California, the state has hired more people in the last year. Of course government seeks to grow.
*What *guns? The ones that get issued to the federal stormtroopers along with their jackboots?
Kindly take that back to your favorite Taxation Is Theft board, please.
Well, lets say I decide not to pay my income taxes. I am self-employed, so there was never any withholding. I keep all my loot in a chest in my house like a pirate. Arrrrr. So the government gets a lien on my house. But I am in my house, with a bunch of food, and my guns and my booty. Do you not think that the government would mount an armed response to get me out of my house? Or would they just wait me out? The answer is, the Sheriff would be there and prepared to use lethal force to get me out. So yes, taxes will, ultimately, be collected at the point of a gun.
Well, that certainly settles that! I thought it was unprovable, but it turns out your credo is solidly based on a dogma. Too many for me, I fold.
Or, to take a simpler case, tax evasion is a crime that you can be arrested for. What does the person arresting you carry?