National Healthcare. What do you think of it?

[Rebdragon]

Do you know a good site where I can check those numbers (or at least statistical data concerning the topic at hand)? They seem a little surprising and I'd like to read more on this side of the issue if there's anything else to read, preferably unbiased. I'm going to look for myself but if you have any suggestions (since you seem to be almost disturbingly knowledgable on this), that'd be great.

 

 

 

Side-note on the defensive medicine thing: I posted a point that mentioned that a large portion of doctors (93%) admit to practicing defensive medicine, and your article says defensive medicine might not even exist and that it can't be measured. That conflict of statements is what makes me want to check the numbers, to make sure they're not skewed or bias.

[l0l0lpur34]

I fail to see how we're being screwed over.

 

 

 

My mum is on about 4 different types of pills for epilepsy, vertigo... all sorts of stuff. She gets MRI scans every few years. My dad happens to have a rare 2 in a million people disease, as well as issues with his stomach. I have asthma... and we all get treated. We all get the care that is needed in a reasonably decent enough time, the only difference is we don't have to pay.

 

 

 

Sure in the UK you're expected to pay for prescriptions but if you can't afford it you don't even need to pay for that! Paying for healthcare is fine if you're middle class and can afford insurance (or over here afford private healthcare like Bupa). But what if you're not wealthy enough? You just get screwed over by the system. There are a lot of things I don't like about England, but the one thing I like is that I can go and get decent healthcare even if I have just 10p to my name.

 

In America your parents insurance premiums would be massive (or unable to get insurance at all) and if they didn't manage to pay them somehow they'd be left to die on the streets or given massive bills.

[transcript80]

I would laugh about figures here if it weren't so sad. Paying $500-$600 a MONTH? I pay that for half a year. Sure, there are some (minor) issues, but it is still pretty cheap. Here, you have a mandatory (basic) health care insurance (less then $100 a month). You can insure for more coverage if you want/can afford it. For the "poorest" people, there are tax construction so these people are even paying less. Also, the insurance companies are obliged to ensure EVERYBODY for basc health care.

 

 

 

It is an outrage that a "modern" country like the US has health care basically for the middle-rich and up. And still, I saw in a documentary last week that even middle class people cannot even affort basic dental care.

 

 

 

I think (one of) the main problem is captialism/market working. It drives up price. People are forced into private clinics that are expensive. Also, suwing everyone for everything doesn't help too.... but that is another story.

 

 

 

Another problem is that (especially republican) Americans are lergic to the word "tax" and "gouvernment", especially when they are mentioned in 1 sentence. If all people chip in (preferably ratio-wise), health care should be affordable, even in America.

[mmmcannibalism]

It is an outrage that a "modern" country like the US has health care basically for the middle-rich and up. And still, I saw in a documentary last week that even middle class people cannot even affort basic dental care.

 

 

 

91% of people in the US have health care; I don't have a degree in economics but that hardly seems like middle rich and up.(not to say 91% have great coverage or that improvements can't be made). Also, a good proportion of people that are the uninsured are eligible for existing coverage but don't sign up for whatever reason(lack of info is something that could be fixed here).

 

 

 

I think (one of) the main problem is captialism/market working. It drives up price. People are forced into private clinics that are expensive. Also, suwing everyone for everything doesn't help too.... but that is another story.

 

 

 

I do agree to an extent; then again competition means doctors have to do a good job.

 

 

 

one thing I have to ask to comment further; under Britain's system are you free to go to whichever liscensed doctor you want?

 

 

 

Another problem is that (especially republican) Americans are lergic to the word "tax" and "gouvernment", especially when they are mentioned in 1 sentence. If all people chip in (preferably ratio-wise), health care should be affordable, even in America.

 

 

 

I do agree that people are particularly slogan happy; of course this is a problem on all issues not just healthcare.

 

 

 

On the ratio thing; the top 1% of americans provide 91% of the tax revenue.(I'll look up the stats I believe 91 is accurate, I can ensure you its a 90+).

[Kaida23]

It is an outrage that a "modern" country like the US has health care basically for the middle-rich and up. And still, I saw in a documentary last week that even middle class people cannot even affort basic dental care.

 

Have you priced dental care lately? This kind of thing isn't just in the USA. Even though Canada has sociallized health care, we still have to pay for our own dental care (unless you're on welfare, of course :x but that's a rant for another day)

 

I make almost 60k a year, and, until recently, I haven't had dental coverage since I turned 19 and no longer qualified under my mother's benefit package. Most companies don't even offer it to their employees due to high costs.

 

 

 

The only reason I have it now is that the Committee Paritaire, Quebec's provincial labor relations board, finally implemented it as part of their standard coverage (Quebec may have it's problems, but they certainly take care of their manual/technical laborers).

[Rebdragon]

On the ratio thing; the top 1% of americans provide 91% of the tax revenue.(I'll look up the stats I believe 91 is accurate, I can ensure you its a 90+).

 

That's incorrect but you have the right idea. 25 years ago the top 1% of the population payed about 18% of the nation's income taxes. Nowadays, you know what the top 1% pays? 40%. 1% of the people in this country are paying for almost half of this countries budget. And what with people like Obama in the white house promising "no tax increases for the middle class," but more government control through taxing the rich, that trend of onus being put on the wealthy isn't stopping. Add all the slandering the rich get in the media for being heartless bastards who won't care for the weak and pay a little more to help, and you know what's going to happen to that part of the country that's paying for nearly half it's budget, and even more if this keeps up? It's going to start leaving. It happened in California, and if people don't get the lesson there it's going to happen to this country.

 

 

 

So can we, like, try and fix private healthcare instead of increasing taxes?

[Racheya]

 

one thing I have to ask to comment further; under Britain's system are you free to go to whichever liscensed doctor you want?

 

 

To some extent. In general you'd go to your local doctors that you register with and get seen by a doctor there, but you can request to see a specific doctor in the practice or see a specialist at the hospital ect. You could go to see a doctor down in say, London, but in general you stick with what's close unless it's something that needs special treatment ect.

[transcript80]

It is an outrage that a "modern" country like the US has health care basically for the middle-rich and up. And still, I saw in a documentary last week that even middle class people cannot even affort basic dental care.

 

 

 

91% of people in the US have health care; I don't have a degree in economics but that hardly seems like middle rich and up.(not to say 91% have great coverage or that improvements can't be made). Also, a good proportion of people that are the uninsured are eligible for existing coverage but don't sign up for whatever reason(lack of info is something that could be fixed here).

 

 

 

I mean DECENT health care. When I see documentaries about health care in the US, I see the people get bancrupted by a surgery. I'm aware of the fact that these cases are the most severe onse, but still.

 

 

 

A friend of mine who drove a car in LA did not insure it, because it was too expensive, like $500 a month (which is outrageous), but if he were to cause an accident, he could be bancrupted instantly (especially with american sewing practises). This is sad.

 

 

 

 

 

On the ratio thing; the top 1% of americans provide 91% of the tax revenue.(I'll look up the stats I believe 91 is accurate, I can ensure you its a 90+).

 

 

 

So what? I'd love to spend so-called "Capital tax" in my country. You onlt have to pay it when you own over 50k euro or so(savings stc.). I'm sad I don't have to pay taxes like that...

[LegsOSkill]

This is not the Barack Obama we elected.

 

 

 

Wednesday, August 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

 

 

 

Taking the stage for a town hall meeting on health care the other day, President Obama emerged from behind a curtain in a fake jog. He pumped his arms in an exaggerated fashion, but his smile looked forced as he waved and shook hands with a few audience members.

 

 

 

It all seemed a campaign ritual, dulled by time and beleaguered by circumstance, prompting a flashback in my head to the Paul Simon song about Joe DiMaggio.

 

 

 

Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite and unhappy nation?

 

 

 

Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that's where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head.

 

 

 

His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side.

 

 

 

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

 

 

 

Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

 

 

 

 

 

Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better.

 

 

 

The public's not buying it. And as a measure of the nation's mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half thing the President is on television too much. Ouch.

 

 

 

Obama fatigue occasionally surfaced during the campaign, but this is different. He's the President, and if the country tunes him out, there is no Plan B. He's the rock star-turned-salesman, and everything in his administration depends on his stage act.

 

 

 

That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President.

 

 

 

Those who say it can't happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Among the lowlights:

 

 

 

* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.

 

 

 

* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.

 

 

 

* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats' proposals would force them to change doctors.

 

 

 

* Seventy-six percent believe Obama's changes will mean higher taxes for them.

 

 

 

* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

 

 

 

All those findings run counter to the claims Obama makes. Even as he talks in vague ways about what exactly he favors, he promises the bill that emerges from Congress' sausage factory will be a magic elixir.

 

 

 

Writing in the New York Times, he guaranteed everything for everyone: "If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between your and the care you need."

 

 

 

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

 

 

 

Those claims would be credible if they were a multiple-choice question, where only one is true. To say they can all happen at once is a crock, and the country knows it.

 

 

 

Heck, throw in a free puppy for everybody, too.

 

 

 

With stubborn wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an economy still bleeding, you'd think a new President would have challenges enough. Yet Obama has plunged into the health care mess as though it is a battle of absolute necessity.

 

 

 

It isn't. It is his choice. And it is a mistake.

 

 

 

If he's the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the county concludes he's the mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article on President Obama's proposed health care plan written by M. Goodwin of the New York Daily News, is quite possible one of the largest low blows on our President. Goodwin not only mocks his health care plan openly, but he attacks Obama's character, it seems he doesn't like the fact that Obama isn't as happy as he was. (Of course he isn't as happy, being President is hard work!) What does that have to do with the health care? I'm not openly saying my political position, and I don't want questions on it. That's not what this topic is about. Tell me how you feel--

 

 

 

Is Mr. M. Goodwin right? Are his statements 'politically correct?' Or do we just have to wait it out and see how things unfold?

 

 

 

I hope you enjoyed the read!

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Legs O Skill

[Hawks]

It's not too late to join the 'crazy' side, that happens to be the side that is right (and I guess in more ways than one). Yeah, I think Goodwin did a great job of saying 'I told you so' and I'll enjoy saying that in a few months, years, whenever the time comes and people finally come to their senses (or Obama keeps failing on his campaign promises and Obamacare screws all of us over).

[#Free]

so happy about this since im goin into medicine and my father is a doctor aka my family continues to make mad money

[LegsOSkill]

so happy about this since im goin into medicine and my father is a doctor aka my family continues to make mad money

 

 

 

At least somebody happy. :roll:

[Rebdragon]

Regards,

 

Legs O Skill

 

This isn't a [bleep]ing e-mail listserv. It's a forum. Aye, it's like you just called your little brother "sir". Do it seriously and it's just wrong.

[mmmcannibalism]

This article on President Obama's proposed health care plan written by M. Goodwin of the New York Daily News, is quite possible one of the largest low blows on our President. Goodwin not only mocks his health care plan openly, but he attacks Obama's character, it seems he doesn't like the fact that Obama isn't as happy as he was. (Of course he isn't as happy, being President is hard work!) What does that have to do with the health care? I'm not openly saying my political position, and I don't want questions on it. That's not what this topic is about. Tell me how you feel--

 

 

 

Is Mr. M. Goodwin right? Are his statements 'politically correct?' Or do we just have to wait it out and see how things unfold?

 

 

 

I hope you enjoyed the read!

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Legs O Skill

 

 

 

The closest thing in that article to a political low blow is saying Obama has descended into a partisan sinkhole. Considering the fact that this bill(if it passes) is most likely going to pass with zero republican support, that is certainly a reasonable claim.

 

 

 

Other then that, this is a perfectly legitimate article. While it uses some emphatic language, the basic claims that Obama is in over his head, and expectations for his administration are diminished(new politics and change specifically) are presented in an effective manner. Of course this is potential controversial(after all it is a political piece), but I don't see anything in here that shows anything but a reasonable critique of the current administration.

 

 

 

* For disclosure, I will clarify that generally speaking I agree with the article.

 

 

 

edit--reb was correct, the top 1% pay 40.4% of taxes; I mixed that up with the fact that the top 1% pay the same amount as the bottom 95%

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

[Rebdragon]

In income taxes. With state and property taxes in all that it balances out a little more (although not immensly).

[Barihawk]

The President is stating along with Pelosi that they are thinking about nuking the bill through the Senate with 51 votes.

 

 

 

I hope healthcare is that much worth it to him because if they attempt to ram a bill that 65% of Americans disagree or are unsure about (37% for), they are going to be utterly destroyed as a Party in upcoming elections. It will be their death sentence. Even several Democrats agree with that.

 

 

 

All in all, the bill was poorly thought out and quite rushed. I'm telling you that if Obama spent his entire two terms working on the bill and putting other matters first, we might have a viable bill that would garner public support. But this bill is rushed, and it's no-compromise. Without the public option it's nothing but a bill that raises premiums and copays. With the option it faces opposition from 54% of the population and a good chunk of those undecided. Right now it's a lose-lose, and forcing it through will eliminate almost every American's trust in government, regardless of Party.

 

 

 

This bill is nothing but a sign of how screwed up the government has been the last decade, where Partisan politics rules all. Six months is absolutely not enough time to overhaul something like healthcare. If nothing else, the debate over this bill has caused severe dissatisfaction among constituents and will hopefully make Americans more cautious in future elections for Congress and the Executive. I am predicting that we will be seeing quite a few more Independants coming into Congress in upcoming terms as people will end up trusting them more than traditional Parties.

[magekillr]

The distance between the parties' leaders on health care was made clear on Tuesday when the No. 2 Republican in the Senate held a conference call with reporters.

 

Asked by ABC News about a package of insurance market reforms that have been endorsed not only by President Obama but also by the insurance industry, Sen. Jon Kyl came out against all three proposals.

 

 

 

In particular, the Arizona Republican signaled that he opposes requiring insurance companies nationwide to provide coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions; requiring them to charge everyone the same rate regardless of health status; and requiring all Americans to carry health insurance.

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8358625

 

 

 

The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obamas health care proposals would create government-sponsored death panels to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

 

 

 

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the partys last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/healt ... ei=5087%0A

 

 

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said it's his preference to see the vast majority of his colleagues on board with a final healthcare bill.

 

 

 

"It ought to be from 80 people in the center of the Senate, I would think," Grassley said during a news conference with Iowa reporters.

 

 

 

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07 ... alth-bill/

 

 

 

In an interview today on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley ® said he'd vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans -- even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.

 

 

 

"I am negotiating for Republicans," he said. "If I can't negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I'm not a good negotiator."

 

 

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 32642.aspx

 

 

 

Co-ops are unacceptable and are still "government run" health care

 

 

 

http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?G ... 38fcc5452f

 

 

 

Lol @ 80 people supporting this bill. Not even 80 people voted for the Supreme Court nominee, something that almost always goes through without a hitch of controversy.

 

 

 

1.) Republicans come out against public option, rather than single-payer, because the Democrats came to the table with an already negotiated solution.

 

 

 

2.) Republicans think they've destroyed the public option, so they come out against co-ops. They previously signaled they'd maybe support co-ops, but only to get rid of the public option. They'd be against co-ops later once they thought it was dead (which they are now doing).

 

 

 

3.) Republicans like Senator Kyl come out against forcing insurance people to cover those with pre-existing conditions, among other insurance reforms.

 

 

 

So they're against single payer, but support Medicare; they're against socialized medicine, but support the VA; they're in support of co-ops for a short while, but then dub it as government control of health care (lol); then to put the nail in the coffin, they're against insurance reforms.

 

 

 

Do you see a pattern here? Step 1, defeat first part. Step 2, move on to next part. Step 3, repeat until it's down to nothing and/or dies.

 

 

 

See, Bari, this is why you're full of [cabbage]. Will you look at all of this and stop being so intellectually dishonest? I mean, are you being serious? Are you being paid by the GOP to lie? I think you know exactly what will happen if we wait all 4-8 years: nothing will happen, and that's exactly what you want. Either you don't want any reform whatsoever, like Senator Kyl and Grassley here--you know, the leading Republicans on health care right now--or you're as deluded with your head in the clouds about bipartisanship as the Obama administration.

 

 

 

The bill has viable public support. 65% of Americans disagree? Which poll are you citing. I can find polls telling me that 76% agree, 71% agree, 66% agree; are you getting yours from Rasmussen? Also, Americans tend to disagree with things that aren't actually in the bill, but the corporate he-said/she-said media doesn't actually do their job of calling people in power out and just repeats what they say. Like the public disagrees with funding abortions with it, covering illegal Americans, including death panels. Put simply, the American people want a public option:

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... ml?_r=2&hp

 

 

 

That's an older poll. Of course most polls aren't as good now because of the GOP spreading their lies about it:

 

 

 

July poll:

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... ml?_r=2&hp

 

 

 

What about 77% of Americans supporting public option?

 

 

 

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... b9d1ba8693

 

 

 

That's August. I guess you forgot about those polls and decided to cherry pick some other poll? Besides, support for something tends to be different when you're lied to. You know, like well over two-thirds of Americans supported the Iraq War when they were being lied to about it.

 

 

 

Anyway, you know exactly what waiting will do, and it's why you want them to wait:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Republicans can fill the airwaves with their lying lies in hopes that it drives American support so low that they just drop the whole thing.

 

 

 

By the by, the only reason Dems have a few false ones on there is because of things like Bernie Sanders saying we pay twice as much as any other nation, which is pretty much true other than 2 or 3 nations who spend like 60% of what we spend instead of 50%.

 

 

 

Why didn't you have a problem with George Bush ramming his Iraq War down our throats? He had to lie to get it through; he couldn't even tell the truth about it. Why aren't you angry that Bush used the terror color code reading for political purposes the night before the election (which is, you know....terrorism?)? What about ramming $1.2 trillion in tax cuts without decreases in spending (like Reagan, Bush I, Bush II have done? Clinton balanced the budget with surpluses)?

 

 

 

You still haven't told me: what is in this bill that you're so vehemently against? I've told you why I'm against it before, but I'd like to add a new reason: if nothing is passed, some Demcrats will lose their seats. Those would be the blue-dogs (corporate shills), and I will celebrate every one of their losses.

[magekillr]

Reb, I'll answer your other questions that you originally asked in a sec. In the mean time, you cite "25 years ago," which was, once again, when Reagan was President.

 

 

 

In any case, I think this chart clearly shows that our tax structure as-is is NOT a "burden" on rich people, that Reagan's tax code changes in the 1980's have clearly been a gift to them, as the top 0.01% have gotten even richer than they did during the Gilded Age...before there even was a god damned income tax:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again...right when Reagan got in.

 

 

 

About California: they're in the problems they're in because of a direct referendum, which is more or less direct democracy.

[Skeptical]

I live in Canada, and it's pretty damn great. Sure, they say that our wait times are longer than in the 'States, but that always seems to be comparing those paying against our free health care.

 

 

 

I can say that in my family, we would be severely in debt, and most likely would have lost our house if we had to pay the medical bills, and my parents are considered wealthy. If we lived in a country without health care, my younger sister would have died shortly after birth, my grandmother would probably not be with us, and I honestly have no idea where the thousands of dollars for my grandfather's palliative care after he contracted cancer would have come from.

 

 

 

I see national health care as being the future: a system where people pay individually is just too inefficient and limiting. Unfortunaetly, the Republicans have labeled it as "Communism". Perhaps it does have a bit of a socialist feel to it. But why should that matter? If the system works (and, for the most part, it does) then why should it matter what it is labeled as?

[Racheya]

Not really got much to say, but here's a video by a British Political Vlogger that he put up today talking about the NHS and Obama's proposal ect. Figured it might contribute to the thread a little :)

 

 

 

[yt]A1Ua8rPf_ZI[/yt]

[dusqi]

This is not the Barack Obama we elected.

 

 

 

Wednesday, August 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

 

 

 

Taking the stage for a town hall meeting on health care the other day, President Obama emerged from behind a curtain in a fake jog. He pumped his arms in an exaggerated fashion, but his smile looked forced as he waved and shook hands with a few audience members.

 

 

 

It all seemed a campaign ritual, dulled by time and beleaguered by circumstance, prompting a flashback in my head to the Paul Simon song about Joe DiMaggio.

 

 

 

Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite and unhappy nation? You are basing all of this on your view that his smile "looked forced"?

 

 

 

Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that's where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head emotive BS.

 

 

 

His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty Citation needed. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side Citation needed.

 

 

 

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

 

 

 

Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

 

 

 

 

 

Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt Citation needed. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better. Reasoned debate is bad?

 

 

 

The public's not buying it Citation needed. And as a measure of the nation's mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half thing the President is on television too much. Ouch. irrelevant BS

 

 

 

Obama fatigue occasionally surfaced during the campaign, but this is different. He's the President, and if the country tunes him out, there is no Plan B. He's the "rock star-turned-salesman" emotive BS, and everything in his administration depends on his "stage act" emotive BS.

 

 

 

That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious Citation needed. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President Leading BS.

 

 

 

Those who say it can't happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll That the public has reservations about the healthcare bill does not mean that they necessarily dislike the President. Among the lowlights:

 

 

 

* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.

 

 

 

* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.

 

 

 

* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats' proposals would force them to change doctors.

 

 

 

* Seventy-six percent believe Obama's changes will mean higher taxes for them.

 

 

 

* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

 

 

 

All those findings run counter to the claims Obama makes. Even as he talks in vague ways about what exactly he favors, he promises the bill that emerges from Congress' sausage factory emotive BS will be a magic elixir emotive BS.

 

 

 

Writing in the New York Times, he guaranteed everything for everyone: "If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between your and the care you need."

 

 

 

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

 

 

 

Those claims would be credible if they were a multiple-choice question, where only one is true. To say they can all happen at once is a crock, and the country knows it. Why

 

 

 

Heck, throw in a free puppy for everybody, too. emotive BS

 

 

 

With stubborn wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an economy still bleeding, you'd think a new President would have challenges enough. Yet Obama has plunged into the health care mess as though it is a battle of absolute necessity Obama has said why he thinks it is necessary, you do not say why it is not.

 

 

 

It isn't. It is his choice. And it is a mistake Why.

 

 

 

If he's the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the county concludes he's the mistake Leading BS.

 

 

 

 

This article was vacuous.

[paul191600]

I don't like it. I don't trust the US government. I don't like Obama. Putting something like this into the government's hands isn't a good idea. What happened to creating new jobs with this "stimulus" bill? Nothing, and its getting worse. The whole idea of nationalized healthcare is nice and all, but I think people in the USA might be in for a shock if it gets passed.

[Barihawk]

Err, Magekllr? Why do you always paint me as some ultra-right wing bastard son of George W. Bush? Just because I'm a registered Republican does not mean I vote ® every chance I get or organize mobs to go raid town hall meetings.

 

 

 

If your entire argument comes down to attacking my character in every thread by accusing me of being anything but the slightly right moderate I am, you are the one being "intellectually dishonest."

 

 

 

For the last freaking time, I'm sick of both parties and the only reason I supported the Iraq War was because it rid us of Saddam. I did not support our reasons for getting into it, but I appreciate the outcome along with a good chunk of people in that nation, no less.

 

 

 

You seem to be the one on the crusade to make your dare-I-say-it flawed views everyone's business and do nothing but mock and attack those who disagree with you. You will go out of your way to insult Republicans, despite the fact that I honestly don't care which ® is banging which South American sweetheart or which (D) is abusing taxpayer dollars. You are symbolic of the bickering between (lettersbetweenparenthesis) bullcrap that is almost completely neutralizing the effectiveness of the government.

 

 

 

Dude, you need to get a grip. Your opinions are beyond bias at this point and you hide behind "intellectualism" at every opportunity for fear of having to admit that someone else has an opinion.

 

 

 

I stand behind my post, as it is merely a reflection of what is happening now in regards to public opinion towards HR 3200, and what has happened in the past when any legislative body has done what the Democrats are thinking about doing, regardless of party affiliation.

 

 

 

And for the last freaking time, stop treating me as if I go home and make out with a poster of Glenn Beck every night. It's rather irritating to see you demean yourself just to make a personal attack.

[ember3579]

Yeah, lay off Barihawk. While I disagree with his views on various subjects (this is only one), demeaning him and anyone else with a dissenting opinion just makes everyone on our side look bad. Disagree with his points (and explain why), don't attack his character. That's the selfsame tactics that Rep politicians used the past 8+ years to get into power. If you really want to prove your point, be better than that.

[Millard]

Did anyone see the Daily Show on Thursday? They had an interview with Betsy McCaughey, person who was banging on about "death panels". Jon Stewart basically shot down everything she said, made her look so stupid and now she's resigned over it. Really was a great piece of journalism.