The W
Views: 97779096
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.7.14 0948
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Health Care Debacle
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
(182 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (100 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.39
I know this board tends to lean a little more to the right, and I generally try to stay out of political discussions around here because it's so easy to get dragged into mudslinging and name calling. However, I feel like venting and seeing what other people think about this, so I'm going to try and sum this up in a nicely packaged little rant.

I am all for health care change. People should have a right to health care and not be denied coverage, you know all that happy stuff Obama said during the campaign. I voted for the guy and have been fine with him and given him the benefit of the doubt on most things so far, but how in the hell did he convince himself to sit back and let a couple of goons like Lieberman and lobbyists for the health care industry hijack this thing and turn it into a bastardized version of something nobody but the industry muscle is happy with is beyond me. The dude has to take a stand on something eventually, and right now I'd have no problem with the Democratic party challenging for his seat in 2012 if he doesn't show some kind of balls and stand up to some of the bullying that has been coming at him from all sides. I know you can't please everybody, but holy cow you ran for the rights of the people so try starting there.

Right now we are just passing a bill just to pass a bill. The Senate bill is plain garbage and should be thrown out as such. If this thing needs to be broken up into smaller pieces then by God do just that. This issue is so big it can't be fixed with one swipe of the pen and one big check. There is some very important stuff that needs to be addressed for our health and the future of the country, it might be time everyone step away and take a look at what they are trying to do here. This includes the man at the top.

Promote this thread!
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.77
The bill was DOA when Congress took forever in August to get it done. Once those town hall riots occurred, there was no way we would get a public option. The Senate also proved that the Democrats' "Big Tent" is its Achilles's heel where there are too many people with too many different agendas. The GOP is in a good place, because there so few moderates left that its just the ultra-conservative wing and yes, that does include sore loser McCain that there is no disagreements between them. They are also entrenched in most of their spots that there vote means nothing back home.

I am not a huge fan of the deal, but you are getting somethings that would have not happened in another presidency like no denial due to prior sickness. I don't agree that everyone should have get health insurance since there is no public option to outset it the insurance companies. The weird part is that the bill looks like what the GOP was using as its their alternative of what they said they would support now none of them will vote for it. They will say its too expensive, but these were the same people that gave George Bush a blank check to wage war in the Middle East as well as being responsible for most of the economic problems as of right now. If it passes, then maybe we can go back in 2011 and get the public option or the medicare buy in. I still don't understand why the Medicare buy in age change is such a big deal since the number was arbitrarily when it was enacted in the first place. It makes no sense to me to say no. Its amazing to me that the GOP is willing spend as much as they want to murder then to help people, not very Christian of them.

I am sure the GOP thinks this is a great victory and they will gain seats. Yet, I think the Dems can use a lot of ammunition in the fall for them no supporting the medicare buy in. Lieberman is also done when he is up for election, but something tells me he bows out before that though. I also think the Tea baggers are in for a shock when they help keep the GOP from major gains in the fall. Something tells me the ultra-conservative wing is about to find that they are not big enough to get the votes and the NY seat is the real trend heading into the 2010 elections. I do think its a win for Obama, its not what he wanted, but its at least something and it is a positive. In a week's time if this passes, he has helped salvage Copenhagen and Health Care.
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 21 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.32
I think this decade has proven how utterly broken the two-party system is. We're about to head into midterm elections and the PotUS election in 2012 and it'd be nice to oust the Dems for this catastrophe of a failure regarding health care, but then the alternative is the Republican Party, which created a lot of the major problems with health care , economic problems, and got into the War in Iraq that's still costing the country billions. For as disappointing as Obama has been, will anyone really vote against when the opposing candidate could potentially be Sarah Palin? It'll be 2004 all over again, where the incumbent is voted in just because the other guy's worse.

Health Care: It doesn't matter who created the problems. What matters is that neither party's willing to fix it.

(edited by It's False on 20.12.09 1516)


There can be only ONE!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
I don't like that the public option isn't in there at this point. My only guess for what's going on is that they feel like they can't find any way to pass a bill with a public option, so they'll get this pushed through and costs still won't get better so they'll have to return in a couple years and add in a public option as the solution.

Obama is being a typical politician. If he says public option or nothing, and ends up with nothing he looks weak. If he compromises and gets something passed, he sees that as the better alternative. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
I find it odd that people who are NOT conservatives think that the GOP is just full of conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think people should be told they cannot get health care coverage for a condition they already have. But, I don't think that spending a trillion dollars is the answer. Pass a law outlawing the practice, and that "problem" is solved.

A public option, is just asking for problems, the government has already shown it cannot run any healthcare programs (medicare, the VA, the DOD Medical system) without it being insolvent.
Like it or not, healthcare is a commodity, and a business. When the government is unable to take a business approach to running something, it ends up spending too much money, and they money they spend is the taxpayer money. That's just completely unacceptable.
The War red herring is just that. Was it needed? Probably not. But the fact is, when we are out of Iraq (which will be soon) and out of Afghanistan (which if you believe Obama, will be in a few years) the war spending stops. But the free giveaways from the government for health care will not.

Obama was supposed to deliver us to a land of bi-partisanship. But, when only one person has really seen every portion of this healthcare bill, that is as far from partisan as you can get.
The fact that Harry Reid has promised tons of spending in order to get this monstrosity of a bill passed, shows just how unpopular this thing is. at least $350million to get two votes, just to get a program that the nation didn't need, is obscene.

Illegal aliens getting access to the system, and public funding for abortions both of which were supposedly NOT going to happen (per the POTUS) are not eliminated according to reports.

Not to mention, ADDING people to medicare, then CUTTING funding makes no sense.
And, raising half a trillion in taxes, despite Obama pledging this would be "spending neutral" shows just how horribly crooked the man is.

This bill will destroy how we all get healthcare, bankrupt our nation (moreso than it already is), and limit coverage and treatment options available.

It's just a bad idea all around.


(edited by StaggerLee on 21.12.09 0103)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I find it odd that people who are NOT conservatives think that the GOP is just full of conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Really? Then why are they virtually all voting the same way on this plan, and on Obama's economic plan before that?

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    A public option, is just asking for problems, the government has already shown it cannot run any healthcare programs (medicare, the VA, the DOD Medical system) without it being insolvent.


When was the last time Medicare was insolvent? I'm legitimately asking here, because I don't know. I know it's on pace to become insolvent in about ten years or so, but that doesn't mean that adjustments couldn't be successfully made.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Like it or not, healthcare is a commodity, and a business. When the government is unable to take a business approach to running something, it ends up spending too much money, and they money they spend is the taxpayer money. That's just completely unacceptable.


I think it's better than the two other alternatives, which are those same taxpayers spending much more through the private sector, or allowing people to die because they can't afford care. Both of which, of course, are happening.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Obama was supposed to deliver us to a land of bi-partisanship. But, when only one person has really seen every portion of this healthcare bill, that is as far from partisan as you can get.


Freudian slip, there? Obama has been as non-partisan as you can get. He started with a compromise plan, and made more and more concessions, and received virtually no support in return. This, again, was true on the stimulus package and it's true again on healthcare. You end up with Republicans (and I have to include Lieberman in this) rejecting compromises that they themselves originally proposed. And filibustering everything after many years of whining about how we need "an up-or-down vote" on every issue of importance to them.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The fact that Harry Reid has promised tons of spending in order to get this monstrosity of a bill passed, shows just how unpopular this thing is. at least $350million to get two votes, just to get a program that the nation didn't need, is obscene.


What major bill didn't need this?

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    And, raising half a trillion in taxes, despite Obama pledging this would be "spending neutral" shows just how horribly crooked the man is.


He said it would be "deficit neutral", which is not the same thing. And the last version that was scored by the CBO indeed was.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    This bill will destroy how we all get healthcare, bankrupt our nation (moreso than it already is), and limit coverage and treatment options available.

    It's just a bad idea all around.



Unfortunately, this bill will NOT destroy "how we get healthcare," which is a system badly in need of destroying. A public option might have had a chance. The version of the bill with the public option expanded coverage, got people more treatment, and reduced the budget deficit. BigDaddyLoco is, I fear, quite right--Obama hasn't been willing or able to take charge and fight for what he was elected to do. W. never had 60 Senators in his party, but for a big chunk of his term he was able to get just about anything he wanted passed. Obama needs to do better.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon

    Really? Then why are they virtually all voting the same way on this plan, and on Obama's economic plan before that?

Because they are playing the bipartisan card. CONSERVATIVES wouldn't be supporting, or recommending legislation that spends $800 billion. Plain and simple. The true conservatives are few and far between.


    When was the last time Medicare was insolvent? I'm legitimately asking here, because I don't know. I know it's on pace to become insolvent in about ten years or so, but that doesn't mean that adjustments couldn't be successfully made.

Medicare has ALWAYS cost more than it was projected. Some estimates (according to the WSJ radio report) are that it costs up to nine times as much as it was originally supposed to.
It's running in a deficit now, and they plan on adding people TO it, and cutting it's funding? Anybody can see that it is a BAD idea.



    I think it's better than the two other alternatives, which are those same taxpayers spending much more through the private sector, or allowing people to die because they can't afford care. Both of which, of course, are happening.

I guess you missed that CDC report this spring that pointed out that as a nation, our life expectancy is longer than ever, right? People aren't dying in the streets because they do not have insurance, as far as tax payers spending more through private sector, that is virtually a lock WITH this legislation. Once every company is REQUIRED to provide insurance, it WILL pass the costs onto the individual. But the thing is, as it stands now, private people can spend what they WANT and buy what they WANT as far as insurance goes. If they do NOT want to buy it, they don't HAVE to. But, under the legislation going around, fines and possibly jail time for NOT purchasing insurance is just wrong.


    Freudian slip, there? Obama has been as non-partisan as you can get. He started with a compromise plan, and made more and more concessions, and received virtually no support in return. This, again, was true on the stimulus package and it's true again on healthcare. You end up with Republicans (and I have to include Lieberman in this) rejecting compromises that they themselves originally proposed. And filibustering everything after many years of whining about how we need "an up-or-down vote" on every issue of importance to them.

Obama has been non partisan? You can say that with a straight face? Okay,tell me, which members of the GOP were asked to help write this bill? Which members of the GOP were visited by Obama last week? Which members of the GOP were summons to the white house to form strategy on the health care reform? The answer would be NONE. Obama is even threatening those on the left who disagree with him.http://thehill.com/​homenews/​house/​72889-​pelosi-​rahm-​do-​not-​scare-​rep-​defazio
He's playing the "Chicago way". And you are right, the GOP hasn't come up with any decent alternative. But, that doesn't mean that what's been proposed is the right thing either.


    What major bill didn't need this?

Oh, I am sorry, I thought Obama said he was putting an end to earmarks. And, a LOT of bills might need SOME favors being passed, but 380 million dollars is more than a lot of bills cost overall. This is just extra spending on TOP of the tons of cash they are throwing at a healthcare takeover that is needless.


    He said it would be "deficit neutral", which is not the same thing. And the last version that was scored by the CBO indeed was.

If you add costs to a budget, you ad to the deficit, unless Obama is going to wave a magic wand and get us out of the red. Spending when you are broke, doesnt work.


    Unfortunately, this bill will NOT destroy "how we get healthcare," which is a system badly in need of destroying. A public option might have had a chance. The version of the bill with the public option expanded coverage, got people more treatment, and reduced the budget deficit. BigDaddyLoco is, I fear, quite right--Obama hasn't been willing or able to take charge and fight for what he was elected to do. W. never had 60 Senators in his party, but for a big chunk of his term he was able to get just about anything he wanted passed. Obama needs to do better.


In five years, when everybody's health insurance must meet government regulations, it WILL change how you get care.

In five years, when the system runs out of money, or is low on money, and the sect of health and human services mandates limits on spending, that means limits on your care.

W was able to get things passed, because he was spending money like a democrat. Plain and simple. That's why the true conservatives in this country couldn't stand Bush, because he was spending like a drunken sailor. The fact that he had a democratic congress at the end of his term, when he was a lame duck, but was still able to get spending bills passed shows how much more bipartisan he is than our current POTUS.

(edited by StaggerLee on 21.12.09 0238)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.48
As a country, we spend way more per capita than any other developed country, yet tens of millions have no insurance. That is a disgrace.

The bigger disgrace is that our elected representatives are unable to come together and sanely address this problem.

While health care is a business, it should also be a right for every American citizen to obtain treatment without going broke. As much money as we currently spend there should be no way we can't figure this out.



Perception is reality
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
I gotta agree with Peter here, to say Obama hasn't tried to work with the GOP is laughable. He's given concession after concession, compromised his bills over and over again to try and meet their requests. And every time he does, they say it's not enough. What do they expect, the exact bill they want?? They aren't in power now and they aren't willing to budge an inch. He's made every effort to bridge the gap and gotten nothing in return. I hate using it, but the Republicans have indeed become the "party of NO".
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.77
I disagree with W being the only one spending money here. I hated W's administration then anything, but he was not alone in spending. McCain, Graham and most of the GOP representatives had no problem handing out money for the Wars, but they do nothing for social programs even ones they created like No Child Left Behind. The conservatives mantra is we are socially conservative about everything even spending on programs to help people, but you want to utterly destroy another country, here is the check book. I think it has more to do with the GOP ties to military based companies which support them. It is very disturbing since they are supposed to have this moral high ground, but they constantly break almost every moral code with their actions and spending. I am not saying Afghanistan wasn't a just war, it was in my opinion, but Gitmo, Iraq and what happened in the post-Afghan victory was a moral disaster. Like I said before the bill is 90% of what the GOP said they would support for reform, now that its here, magically they don't want to support it. The GOP was never going to support this bill even if it was 100% of what they wanted. To them any progress is a win for Obama and the Dems. They could care less about the country and after the last 8 years, is anyone really surprised.

Obama did get bi-partisan support in the House for the health care bill, the defense budget, sending more troops to Afghan and other programs. The thing with representative government and two party systems is compromised is the name of the game. It was the founding fathers wanted and it works to a degree. W got things pushed through since after 9/11, the country was behind him til 2005 and the GOP was rating high. It also lead to the problems we have today, so one could argue the country need more compromises. The real problem for Obama is the media. Fox News is on a quest to make him a failure and the rest of the networks are following Palin around like a lap dog for what reason. So, anything she says gets an article on CNN even though I have as much authority as she does in government, right now. And 85% of what comes out of Palin's mouth is a retarded and untrue, but it gets reported as news. Yet, the media is supposed to keep the politicians honest, I don't know about trying to destroy them with one lie after another. The sad part is Arnold gave Obama an A for effort, but it gets buried by Palin's fucking hat. I do think the closer we get to the elections, the more we see the GOP civil war then the Dems losing, because war makes for more interesting television.

(edited by lotjx on 21.12.09 0800)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.73
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    I know this board tends to lean a little more to the right



I can't pay attention to this thread because I am busy laughing my ass off at this statement.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.77
Laughing, because he is right, right?
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
    Originally posted by lotjx
    Laughing, because he is right, right?

Yeah, and the press isn't biased towards the left either, right?
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 26 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
Yeah, I'm sorry AWA, but when the big cheese around thes eparts is a conservative, and a good portion of the regular posters in this forum are conservative, that kind of qualifies as "leaning to the right". I know that a lot of Republicans view the mere existence of liberals as an evil media conspiracy, but come on. EDIT: Haha, StaggerLee proves my point. Yes, the press that fell for every distractionist dog-and-pony show pushed during the Bush administration is left-slanting. "Newsweek lied, people died!" "John Kerry is a flip-flopper!" "Just how much of a terrorist is Obama, given his relationship with Bill Ayers?" "Well, Janet Jackson's nipple is certainly a more pressing issue than the Iraq War".

I'll say it again: the fact that the country that claims to be the best in the world doesn't see healthcare asn inalienable right is just damning. There is no way around the fact that the current system, dictated by those who view health solely in terms of profit margins, is horrifically broken and hopelessly in opposition to those on the lower end of the class scale. All the opposition boils down to is "We as rich people don't want to pay a bit more tax to help out those less fortunate than us".

(edited by Amos Cochran on 21.12.09 1002)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.77
Actually, StaggerLee, there have been a number of different studies that the media is actually conservative leaning. Yet, keep believe that fallacy.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
    Originally posted by lotjx
    Actually, StaggerLee, there have been a number of different studies that the media is actually conservative leaning. Yet, keep believe that fallacy.


Please point me to one.


Also, a lot of people here keep saying that Obama caved in and made concessions to the GOP in this health care bill. What exactly would those be?
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Originally posted by lotjx
      Actually, StaggerLee, there have been a number of different studies that the media is actually conservative leaning. Yet, keep believe that fallacy.


    Please point me to one.


    Also, a lot of people here keep saying that Obama caved in and made concessions to the GOP in this health care bill. What exactly would those be?


Dropping the public option, dropping Medicare expansion, dropping any triggers or options for a future public option....just a few major ones.

As for the Liberal Media Elite...best lie the GOP ever constructed.
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 26 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
Yup. If the media were so hellbent on fighting conservative values I don't think Dubya would've made it to all eight years. If there was enough material out there to string Clinton up then there was plenty available to tear the last administration to shreds.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
The public option was dropped because of the handful of Democratic Senators who said they would not support a bill that contained a public option.

The final bill DOES expand medicare (while cutting it's funding).


I don't want to come across as somebody who doesn't want people to have health insurance. I just think it's a personal responsibility, and that people should pay for it on their own.
IF they cannot afford it, then I think subsidies should be in place. If this was really about 'fixing a broke system', it could have been done through legislation and a much cheaper spending package. But, it's not. It's a money grab for the Insurance industry, and a power grab for the Democrats.
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 26 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
It's great that you think healthcare should depend on your ability to navigate a complex subsidies claiming system. And what kind of healthcare should be covered by these subsidies?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread ahead: Terror Attack thwarted in Detroit.
Next thread: The Pope gets knocked down at Christmas Mass
Previous thread: RIP Oral Roberts (1918 - 2009)
(182 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well then he's cleared of all charges regarding that photo. -Jag
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Health Care DebacleRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.