He's due to give his congressional address within a half hour. Just wondering if anyone else here is watching and wishes to comment. He's been appealing way too much to the moderates for me. But that's pretty much what I expected.
Post Merge: September 09, 2009, 08:26:37 PM
The republican response is a pathetic joke. They are finally admitting something needs to get done but, still playing the same stalling, scare tactics as usual to stymie reform. You'd have to be complete imbicile to buy in to anything they say after all the demagoguery of the past months.
I thought Obama gave a great speech, he hit all the points and addressed everyone's concernes with care and sensitivity. I just don't think it was forceful enough. Since he's been in office he's grown timid and even less presidential than he appeared as a candidate. I didn't vote for him just to see another Jimmy Carter.
I will never lose my faith, I'm just sick of this cowering to the right wing morons.
Obama math is a pie in the sky.
They need to reform the corporate world and the government agencies before they tackle the health care industry. The money just is not there to pay for more than we barely can pay for now. Someone has to come up with the short end of the stick, Who?
I thought it was a good speech. But not a great one, and we needed a great one.
But the Dems have the votes if they push it, and they ought to push it, or be replaced.
Does Pelosi have the votes?
http://drudgereport.com/flashwc.htm (http://drudgereport.com/flashwc.htm)
Keep in mind the above is before the speech, but it still gives a good idea of the obstacles in the Speakers way.
Oh she has the votes, the problem is in the Senate, where the 'Pubs are enamored with what they used to call 'the nuclear option' and I think we ought to call them on it.
P.S. Matt Drudge is about as reliable as FreeRepublic, where he is often quoted.
There is a way to do this, it's called, hard ball politics.
...2010 will be interesting.
Not if he wins this, do this, all the rest will go by the wayside. Lose this (and given that he has 2 more times to try) and he might lose the primary, I doubt it, but he will be challenged. But from the other side, there is no real competition. So its a democratic deal all the way.
I am listening to his speech right now, missed it live since I was at work. I'm about halfway through the speech, and I'm not impressed TBH. I have to agree with Tekla, he should have been more forceful, and it needed to be a greater speech.
Both my mom and I work in health care. We don't want this to pass if it's not going to really change things.
Also...too much clapping!! Stop clapping you idiots, just do your jobs right.
Fae, Tekla didn't say Obama needed to be more forceful, I said it. What Tekla said is the Dems have the votes and they need to push it, if not they need to be replaced. I agree. This lesson should have been learned long ago.
Quote from: Princess Phoebe on September 10, 2009, 12:19:10 AM
Fae, Tekla didn't say Obama needed to be more forceful, I said it. What Tekla said is the Dems have the votes and they need to push it, if not they need to be replaced. I agree. This lesson should have been learned long ago.
Ah, my apologies Phoebe. I agree with both of you. ;D
Quote from: Fae on September 10, 2009, 12:25:31 AM
Ah, my apologies Phoebe. I agree with both of you. ;D
No apology needed, Hon. The issue has just been thrown way off track and obfuscated to the point nobody can really discuss it anymore in reasonable terms.
I have friends who are actually the recipients of government-run health care in one form or another, or their loved ones get it, and they are bitching and whining about "socialism"...it's infuriating. I say give it up! Pay out of pocket for you and your grandma for "free market" health care if you think it's so great. Of course they change the subject then to some nonsense like Death Panels...argh!!!
Post Merge: September 10, 2009, 02:50:07 AM
Just so we are all straight, here's the live C-SPAN coverage
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/09/HP/A/22900/Pres+Obamas+Health+Care+Speech+to+JointSession+of+Congress.aspx (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/09/HP/A/22900/Pres+Obamas+Health+Care+Speech+to+JointSession+of+Congress.aspx)
This was a great speech. The final ten minutes were the best case for liberalism in America that I've ever heard.
He laid out a very reasoned plan and I think if he can get it through, it will be good for most Americans.
The Republicans just look childish now.
It was a good speech. The thing that stood out to me the most was two of the arguably most powerful women in American politics (Speaker Pelosi and Hillary) wearing the same suit. I wish Hillary had been the one giving that speech, or wait, no, there would be no speech because this crap would be done already. I love Obama and everything but he needs to quit being so wimpy and diplomatic and get down to business.
Quote from: Becca on September 10, 2009, 04:00:05 AMI love Obama and everything but he needs to quit being so wimpy and diplomatic and get down to business.
I totally agree. Enough is enough with this nonsense.
I wish Hillary had been the one giving that speech, or wait, no, there would be no speech because this crap would be done already.
Ummmm, historically speaking, didn't she fail to deliver this once already? Thought so.
This is not easy, it wasn't easy back when FDR, Truman, Johnson and Clinton all tried and failed. The money on the other side is huge, and mostly unregulated. And not about to go down without a a fight. Hell, most of what is really being fought here is not the public option - its the regulation of insurance companies.
What I would have loved to see him to was to ask the Republicans (easy to spot, those would be the old grumpy white guys in dark colored suits) if they had the courage of their convictions, and if so, how many of them - opposing a government run system and all - would give up their government run coverage for themselves and their families? You know, cause it's so bad and all.
The point was that the speech was based on faith that many people do not have.
The simple solution to the difference between facts and misjudgments is to only implement the savings parts of the bill. Then in one year measure the savings. If the savings meet projections then implement the rest of the bill. If not back to the drawing board and start working with facts instead of the misjudgments stated in the speech
Your point is fair enough Tekla.
I don't know about the initial savings thing, it seems to me that people going untreated and procedures going undone would likely get caught up in the first couple years, so really they wouldn't be a reflection of the overall health of the system.
Personally I hope he is successful. But I was not too impressed that he made his case. Sorry. I think we are still talking about so many generalizations, that it is quite difficult to even debate.
I found this analysis interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_fact_check (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_fact_check)
Kristi
You put 40 million people that can not afford health coverage in the system who is going to take care of them? There are long waiting line now. Who is going to pay their costs? Medicare is now going bankrupt.
For instance people that work at walmart and do buy their insurance can not even afford the deductible to go to a doctor unless they have a second income.
My brother died because he did not want to stick the ER with a bill he could not pay. Some people have morals. Even the office of budget tells the savings are not going to cover the costs.
Now take those polite programs to reduce mal practice cost one of the largest parts of medical care. It is just a polite in a few states and not a cost saver to the wide system He never once used the words Tort reform.
Then add the pre existing people that are the high risk high cost to the system and everyone will have to pay higher premiums.
Now he wants to force young people to pay insurance premiums most young people barely can support them selves and no extra to buy insurance. Then take the official 9.7 % unemployed ( collecting unemployment money)looking for work that will only get lesser pay jobs and add the 11 percent discouraged job hunters and then the 6 % of job seekers that ran out unemployment checks.
Tell me where is the money coming from as the tax base is declining and people can not even afford to pay rent?
The really important item is the automatic spending cuts. Democrats have been complaining for some time that the Congressional Budget Office has refused to score hypothetical savings from various programs. Though the president claims that he can pay for most of the bill through cutting "waste, fraud and abuse," the C.B.O. will almost certainly take a dimmer view. The automatic spending cuts potentially allow them to assume that these savings will happen.
No one disputes that the $2.3 trillion we devote to the health care industry is often spent unwisely, but the fact that the United States spends twice as much per person as most European countries on health care can be substantially explained, as a study released last month says, by our being fatter. Even the most efficient health care system that the administration could hope to devise would still confront a rising tide of chronic disease linked to diet.
That's why our success in bringing health care costs under control ultimately depends on whether Washington can summon the political will to take on and reform a second, even more powerful industry: the food industry.
Post Merge: September 10, 2009, 03:36:15 PM
Mean while the Supreme Court is hearing a case on corporations effecting elections. Can they use their unlimited wallet to support the election of the candidate that will be most favorable to them?
Stop the war in Iraq. Stop the war in Afghanistan. Reinstate the old tax rates that Bush et. all, let the richest 10% of the nation get out of paying. Legalize marijuana, let the people out of jail who are serving time for it, and tax the sales of it. Do that and you'll be swimming in cash. All you need, and even more and more than that.
All of those things are favored and supported by the American Public in majority numbers.
Quote from: tekla on September 10, 2009, 08:10:15 PM
Stop the war in Iraq. Stop the war in Afghanistan. Reinstate the old tax rates that Bush et. all, let the richest 10% of the nation get out of paying. Legalize marijuana, let the people out of jail who are serving time for it, and tax the sales of it. Do that and you'll be swimming in cash. All you need, and even more and more than that.
All of those things are favored and supported by the American Public in majority numbers.
And none of those things can get through congress without people losing their minds.
As far as I can see they already are losing their minds, I'm just going to help them complete the trip. And California is going to legalize pot, in the next few years I bet, they need the money too bad. The majority of people want the wars over with. So that only leaves taxes.
I still think that when the cost of a med in the US is $258 and I can get from Canada for $35 that there are issues to deal with on drug costs to consumers. Someone told me that the difference is from advertising etc. Does that mean that the US is paying for all advertising costs and Canada is paying none? I don't think so. If I go to a hospital and have to pay $5 for one aspirin tablet but can buy a whole bottle in a store for less than that, something needs to change. Cheaper to stay home and take aspirin since the hospital won't let you buy it and bring it in unopened for your own use. I was charged for a surgery I never had because the hospital charged the insurance which paid for it because the hospital said they had it ready for me, even if I had already told them I wasn't going to do it.
These costs can be controlled and should be.
QuoteBut know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. (Applause.) I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. (Applause.) And I will not -- and I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
This kind of rubbed me the wrong way. If you are for it then fine... if you are against if then you must be one of the above. Forget having a good reason. But if the Dem's have the majority then put it in place. What is the hold up???
Secondly, the Healthcare bill in Congress now is radically different than what he described. Are those changes in effect. An example :
QuoteTHE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause
and yet the bill states... depending on which version and possible amendments raises the question through the following links.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/04/does-house-healthcare-bill-fund-abortion-depends-on-whom-you-ask.html (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/04/does-house-healthcare-bill-fund-abortion-depends-on-whom-you-ask.html)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16559 (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16559)
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/08/04/top_stories/doc4a785d9abf7d1586719268.txt (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/08/04/top_stories/doc4a785d9abf7d1586719268.txt)
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/51370 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/51370)
My point is if you write a 1100 page BILL that the are going to be parts that need amending. Abortion will probably be taken out. BUt by doing so, the Dem's will have something favorable to their side added in. So now who is politicing?
Back to the statement from Obama , The President's power over a bill is his ablility to sign or veto. If it never reaches his desk, then how does he think he can ramrod it through if the opposition is holding it up. And if the Current Majority is the DEMS, I ask again who is holding this up.
D
QuoteAnd if the Current Majority is the DEMS, I ask again who is holding this up.
It is not that simple. Even though they are the majority there is not unanimous support for the bill among them. For example my states only Democrat in Congress has opposed it and stated he will not vote for it. Many Dems that have large numbers of republicans in their districts need to consider how their vote on this bill will impact their bids for re-election.
QuoteSomeone told me that the difference is from advertising etc. Does that mean that the US is paying for all advertising costs and Canada is paying none?
What they really mean is marketing. First big pharma spends big bucks lobbying congress to keep the FDA from understanding their drugs and the safety. Then they spend big bucks wineing dining and rewarding doctors to push their drugs. The result are 27 million on antidepressants, millions on statins and many millions on other drugs. Then there are the research costs put on the U.S. citizens to present that elusive documents to pass the FDA. You know about the ghost writers that make them not even the doctor that that was suppose to write the research paper. Finally the Public marketing. If the U.S. was serious about reforming health care they would start with the FDA the Big Pharma the Big Food corporations. They also might want to change the way corporate charters give special advantages to corporations.
Someone said their brother didn't have insurance and chose to die rather than stick the tax payers with the bill of saving his life at the emergency room?
Really?
REALLY?
I guess that makes me the world's biggest coward because you can bet your sweet a** that if I didn't have insurance and was dying, I'd be all up in that public hospital whining "save me, save me!."
Of course that cost just gets passed on by doctors and hospitals to the government and the privately insured through increased premiums anyway. Six or one-half dozen or the other, it all comes out in the wash.
Quote from: Princess Phoebe on September 12, 2009, 01:35:24 PM
Someone said their brother didn't have insurance and chose to die rather than stick the tax payers with the bill of saving his life at the emergency room?
Really?
REALLY?
I guess that makes me the world's biggest coward because you can bet your sweet a** that if I didn't have insurance and was dying, I'd be all up in that public hospital whining "save me, save me!."
Of course that cost just gets passed on by doctors and hospitals to the government and the privately insured through increased premiums anyway. Six or one-half dozen or the other, it all comes out in the wash.
No you are not a coward. You're a rational human being.
It just goes to show how messed up our system is that people would even get it in their heads to make this kind of decision.
He may have cost taxpayers one one millionth of a penny at his worst. Hardly worth dying over. Idiot guy.
Matt Taibbi of The Rolling Stone reminds us that Obama is doing way more for those who have no problem getting health care than he is for those who can't afford it.
Here is a series (three) of videos wherein he points out Obama's failures to those of us who voted for change but in reality are getting the same thing Dubya gave seniors by refusing to let the government negotiate with Big Pharma for bulk purchases of meds:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/08/19/matt-taibbi-on-health-care-reform-sick-and-wrong/# (http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/08/19/matt-taibbi-on-health-care-reform-sick-and-wrong/#)
As Tekla said, they should be thrown out if they don't learn the lessons history should have taught them. I won't waste one damn tear on the backstabbers.
Quote from: arbon on September 11, 2009, 02:15:49 PM
It is not that simple. Even though they are the majority there is not unanimous support for the bill among them.
Then I would say this is not an issue with Republicans blocking as the Dems can not even get the support for this amongst themselves and they are the majority.
Quote from: arbon on September 11, 2009, 02:15:49 PM
Many Dems that have large numbers of republicans in their districts need to consider how their vote on this bill will impact their bids for re-election.
Pandering through politics -- Term limits may solve this issue. If you eliminate the worry about re-election then the representative can vote your way. The constituients can not control you, the lobbyists can fund you.... Honesty in Washington - Never happen!
And yet you now see a mobilization on constitiuents opposed, marching ... interesting
D
Here's what real doctors have to say about our health system. Watch it
http://www.blip.tv/file/2266267#id2278671 (http://www.blip.tv/file/2266267#id2278671)
Doing nothing is not an option. I also think private insurance and for-profit hospitals are major contributors to the health care crisis.
Quote from: daisybelle on September 14, 2009, 01:54:00 PM
Pandering through politics -- Term limits may solve this issue. If you eliminate the worry about re-election then the representative can vote your way.
we already have term limits, they happen every 2 years for our reps, every 6 for senators and every 4 for presidents. if you limit them to 1 term why would an elected official even care if you think they are doing a good job or not? they don't need your vote anymore and can just worry about lining their pockets. the only thing that keeps them honest (does that word mean the same when talking about politics? hmmm) is the fear of not winning relection. term limits limit good politicians' terms as well as crappy ones.
Quote from: Princess Phoebe on September 13, 2009, 05:12:14 PM
Matt Taibbi of The Rolling Stone reminds us that Obama is doing way more for those who have no problem getting health care than he is for those who can't afford it.
I have such a crush on Matt Taibbi!! :icon_chick:
Pandering through politics -- Term limits may solve this issue. If you eliminate the worry about re-election then the representative can vote your way
Could I have half a hit of whatever you took? States that passed that nonsense are far worse off then there were before. You demand more professionalism in your nail tech then in your government, and be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Like I said, those that have are at the mercy of the lobbyists, who don't have term limits, or limits on money to spend.
You eliminate the need of people to face re-election, they are then free to vote for whoever pays the most for them to run for the next office.
ABC suprised me... never in a million years would I have expected this report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg#)
Both videos emphasize the points I have raised before. I do not think single payer government health care is the answer but health care costs do need to be controlled. What good is insurance that makes you wait til you die or refuses to cover needed procedures, or even refuse to cover you due to pre existing clauses or because it is not profitable to do so?
The bill as released is as bad as it could be, it raises cost, provides less, and has no public option - real bad. Turn it down, and try again, try introducing single payer and argue that.
H.R. 676 (http://www.hr676.org/)
come on (so called) liberals! support medicare for all!!!