EPTObama's Healthcare Speech - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
zizou21
United States3683 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:02 s_side wrote: The omnibus appropriations package?? Signed into law on March 11, 2009?? Don't be a dunce. Jesus Christ, our country really is fucked. As I recall, the bailout was what was jammed down our throats. Essentially Paulson came out of the blue ( to the ordinary American anyway) and asked for unheard of amounts of money with essentially no limitations, and if he didn't get it our economy would be in ruins. By the time the stimulus bill was passed (and yes, I thought you were referring to the bail out), it was a general consensus that there needed to be some kind of stimulus. The only debate was about how much, where it was going to go, and how it was to be administered. Why exactly do you think this is being pushed on us? Health care reform has been talked about for decades. It has been a problem for decades, and the solutions proposed have been proposed for decades. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
| ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
Bush passed a stimulus bill way before Obama made it into office. Also, it's not Obama's job to dictate what goes into the health care bill if it arises, that's the job of the Senate and the House of Representatives. They just give him the bill whether he signs it or not. He's not responsible for the details, although he can outline his desires. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:28 NExUS1g wrote: If it saves live, saves money and helps people be healthier, awesome. What's wrong with it? The bill will provide better coverage, I'm pretty sure of that. The problem is that we have no real idea if it actually will save money or not. People will argue one way or the other, but most will be talking out of their ass. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8141 Posts
On September 10 2009 10:38 GoShox wrote: Video of the "liar" part: EXTREMELY pitiful for any Republican (or anyone in politics for that matter) to be that immature. Apparently it was Joe Wilson from South Carolina... with the Republicans already down as they are now, I don't know why they resort to silly antics like this. rofl omfg how the hell are the republicans a real fucking political party? | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote: I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan. Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill. And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:02 Mystlord wrote: If they know the fundamental problems, why aren't they dealing with them? It will probably take longer than Obama's current term to fix the underlying problems of our health care system. At the very least, Medicare needs to be completely reworked because this incentives system isn't working. By our current health care system, tests = money for doctors. Even if they're junk tests. If you ask me, we're just running a moral hazard economy system for health care. It's not in the doctors' best interests to do an x-ray to confirm a diagnosis if he can get more money for an MRI. This also leads to waste, which leads to rising costs. This bill isn't addressing these problems, it's just expanding coverage, which isn't exactly a bad thing, but you can't talk about the economy (as Obama did in the beginning of the speech), without trying to cut down on COSTS not on PRICES. It's not just for doctors gaining money. It's also due to the insurance practices in this country. If anything goes wrong, people have their lawyers on speeddial. Insurance costs for doctors from "medical malpractice" are no joke and people are always looking towards making an easy buck. Not only does this make the doctors' jobs harder, it leads to waste, as you pointed out. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:38 Ideas wrote: rofl omfg how the hell are the republicans a real fucking political party? Actually, people have been relatively respectful towards Obama lately. The townhall meetings for regular Senators and Representatives have been much worse and just outright outrageous. Calling Obama a socialist, then decrying his health care bill as Nazi scare tactics or whatever the right is doing lately... I can't believe that people can be so blind to the facts. On September 10 2009 10:33 motbob wrote: That's from the first half of the speech. WTF LR Yeah, not really vague at all. Obama is actually going into way more detail than he has to and he is being much more flexible than he has to be. The Patriot Bill was pretty much shoved down our throats, although we haven't really been seeing its effects in our daily lives. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:02 s_side wrote: The omnibus appropriations package?? Signed into law on March 11, 2009?? Don't be a dunce. Jesus Christ, our country really is fucked. By the way, every year they sign into law a omnibus appropriations package. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote: And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point. There is some cost-cutting inherent in expanding coverage. For example, people's emergency room visits will now by covered by insurance companies and not the hospital for people who gain insurance under this plan. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On September 10 2009 11:42 ghostWriter wrote: It's not just for doctors gaining money. It's also due to the insurance practices in this country. If anything goes wrong, people have their lawyers on speeddial. Insurance costs for doctors from "medical malpractice" are no joke and people are always looking towards making an easy buck. Not only does this make the doctors' jobs harder, it leads to waste, as you pointed out. You're absolutely right. I'm just referring to one facet of the argument. I could make a laundry list of problems including R&D, Drug Patents, the FDA, problems in price opacity (this one is really ridiculous), poor doctors to patient ratios, reliance on health insurance, and just disorganization in general. On September 10 2009 11:48 motbob wrote: There is some cost-cutting inherent in expanding coverage. For example, people's emergency room visits will now by covered by insurance companies and not the hospital for people who gain insurance under this plan. ??? You're only talking about cost cutting for the CONSUMER. The price of the actual emergency room visit stays the same, thus health care costs won't go down. | ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
Let's face it, no matter what they in passing things for job loss, the effect won't be seen immediately so its not advantageous from a reelection standpoint. This healthcare thing they can say either "hey I voted for it, it passed and look at the good it did" or "I voted against it, it passed, and look at how terrible it was" just to get their asses a job again. Its the same idealistic babble that doesn't get anything done. The smug bastards clap and cheer like a bunch of phonies. "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend. Its the same bullshit of the two party system that doesn't do anything, its not simply recognizing we have an issue and going from there its the democrats insist on pushing the shit through ASAP regardless of what it said or who wrote it and the republicans don't want it passed to appease big pharma. Like Mr Canadian earlier in the thread, you guys have a cap on the cost of your medications. Try start small, taking baby steps, instead we have to have some convoluted $900 billion dollar package that's gonna just miraculously solve everything in one fell swoop. Its bullshit, the only thing that's certain is the assholes will try to keep their jobs. It doesn't matter what the healthcare system is like if everyone keeps losing jobs. People are so easily wooed over by a speech, the TALK, regardless of the WALK. More importantly he acts like it just changes thing over night. That's all he's done since he's been elected, either screw things up or be a suave speaker. Like I said, for some reason, they refuse to take baby steps and do things that can work, rather than some way too huge chunk of legislation that is far harder to iron out the wrinkles. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection. There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill. "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend. The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too. | ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
On September 10 2009 12:11 motbob wrote: There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill. The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too. If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7290 Posts
Its plainly obvious that the way things are now is a crock of shit so Im all for change, even if for the moment, its for the sake of getting the ball rolling. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote: If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon. Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt. | ||
| ||
