Obama's First Year

[indy500fan]

1) What change has Obama achieved?

2) I've read plenty of unbiased data that backs that statistic up, some that go even farther. I personally believe Obama himself sees truth in that statistic, but at the same time he wishes to give affordable healthcare to the 15% who don't approve of current healthcare. I just think he's going about it a very, very wrong way.

3) I can tell you that that is the farthest from 100% false that any current media station gets, but you wouldn't believe me anyways.

 

1. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/ There are 53 things here. I linked it in an earlier post already.

2. I find 85% being happy with current health care to be extremely unlikely, considering 28% said that they or a family member could not get medical care that was needed. Also 42% worrying that they would lose their health insurance in the next year source

3. The only news station I watch is Fox News, so I can't compare it to other stations. Whenever I see anything on it from say Glenn Beck, most of the time it is FUD that is more or less completely false. Look back to earlier this year when they were talking about death panels, or even late last year during election time when they were questioning Obama's citizenship/religion. The station is nowhere near fair and balanced, it is an outlet for the Republican party.

[Rebdragon]

rocco-

 

1) He may have slowed down the fall of the economy, but he's sunk the deficit even deeper into the red, and he's arguably wasted it. Many economists believe that the Great Depressions was dramatically prolonged by government spending, as opposed to letting the market right itself. To your point he did save the banking sector by preventing the fall of TBTF's, but extraneous spending beyond that is arguably slowing the recovery of the economy.

2) Personal anecdote against statistics is not really a proper response. It's an appeal to emotion opposed against data. Besides, healthcare costs have increased dramatically because of the systems we have in place that eliminate the connection between a patient and their healthcare costs. The insurance companies are just keeping up with costs, not cheating the system. So, by that I don't get why government healthcare is a good idea. It's just distributing the wealth without actually solving the core problem of rising healthcare costs.

3)I... don't get the joke.

 

Indy-

On number two, not to sound like a cop-out the data goes both ways and tends to depend a lot of on how the question is asked. I've seen a huge amount of data that says that only a small minority are dissatisfied with their healthcare, but I've also seen a good amount of data that supports your point as well. Debating it will probably get nowhere.

 

On Fox, I'd agree that it's conservative. But when you compare it to every other station, every other station being blatantly liberal, Fox is relatively fair based a couple reasons, such as it's actual use of political debate(as opposed to political circle-jerking).

[MisterGreen]

What's wrong with hawks post...? Apart from the "the guys done nothing comment" (which is debatable), nothing seemed blatantly stupid/arrogant/trollish about it.

 

She has conservative views. How does that make her a troll?

 

I'm holding back a "oh right, everyone here's a teenage liberal", because I know the second I say that this whole thing will degrade into typical "us vs them" american politics. So let's not go down that road >_>.

 

Obama done nothing.

85% approve of current health care.

FOX News being fair and balanced.

 

Three 100% false statements. I would rather assume someone is trolling than they believe blatantly false information.

 

EDIT: Plus mentioning the President's race, which is completely irrelevant.

 

1. Name one outstanding thing that Obama has done to help the economy, or anything else for that matter.

 

2. 100% false? 85% of Americans have insurance, 15% percent don't. Although I can't say that all people with health insurance are happy with with what they have, It's certainly not "100% false" as you said.

 

3. CNN, Fox, or any other news network, is no different. There is no such thing as "fair and balanced" in the media.

 

It's not blatantly false.

[indy500fan]

1. Name one outstanding thing that Obama has done to help the economy, or anything else for that matter.

 

2. 100% false? 85% of Americans have insurance, 15% percent don't. Although I can't say that all people with health insurance are happy with with what they have, It's certainly not "100% false" as you said.

 

3. CNN, Fox, or any other news network, is no different. There is no such thing as "fair and balanced" in the media.

 

It's not blatantly false.

 

1. Credit card bill of rights. Stimulus package. Ordering the end of the Iraq war the first day in office (although this is progressing rather slowly). Closing Guantanamo Bay. Fund high speed rail projects. Reverse restrictions on stem cell research. I've provided the link twice now, not my fault you aren't clicking on it.

2. So if every single person with health insurance is happy then that statistic would be accurate. However I know of a few people personally with health insurance who are not happy, so it is already wrong. Look at the link you provided, it said many of those insured are under insured and I am sure they aren't happy. 85% of Americans being insured and 85% being happy with current health care are two completely different things, so yes, it is 100% false. Just because two statistics have the same numbers doesn't mean they are equivocal.

3. You can get fair and balanced, like I said earlier I can't claim anything about other TV news stations since I don't watch them. However NPR is a good example of giving both sides their time to talk.

[Hawks]

1. Name one outstanding thing that Obama has done to help the economy, or anything else for that matter.

 

2. 100% false? 85% of Americans have insurance, 15% percent don't. Although I can't say that all people with health insurance are happy with with what they have, It's certainly not "100% false" as you said.

 

3. CNN, Fox, or any other news network, is no different. There is no such thing as "fair and balanced" in the media.

 

It's not blatantly false.

 

1. Credit card bill of rights. Stimulus package. Ordering the end of the Iraq war the first day in office (although this is progressing rather slowly). Closing Guantanamo Bay. Fund high speed rail projects. Reverse restrictions on stem cell research. I've provided the link twice now, not my fault you aren't clicking on it.

2. So if every single person with health insurance is happy then that statistic would be accurate. However I know of a few people personally with health insurance who are not happy, so it is already wrong. Look at the link you provided, it said many of those insured are under insured and I am sure they aren't happy. 85% of Americans being insured and 85% being happy with current health care are two completely different things, so yes, it is 100% false. Just because two statistics have the same numbers doesn't mean they are equivocal.

3. You can get fair and balanced, like I said earlier I can't claim anything about other TV news stations since I don't watch them. However NPR is a good example of giving both sides their time to talk.

 

1) None of those things have been achieved yet, (besides stimulus package, which is arguably the worst of them) it's the same as him saying he'll do something and he still hasn't. Either way the things you mention aren't the biggest problems facing America today. People are stupid, we shouldn't be making it easier for them to be stupid (which is what the credit card bill is); and the rest of the things you mention only help certain areas of the United States/are highly controversial and aren't logistically probable; one could also argue that most of them are things that state or city jurisdiction should cover, not federal.

 

2) Either way, 85% being insured is still supporting the fact that Obama needs not to go about national healthcare in this way. If 85% of people are insured, that implies they're happy enough with their current care to be insured by it. One could suggest that the 15% uninsured are unemployed or underemployed and perhaps all of this 'work' could be better spent creating jobs for them.

 

3) Semi-unrelated; I can't stand NPR. Either way, Fox is the only national news channel to attempt to offer both sides, as stated before the rest are blatantly liberal.

 

What's wrong with hawks post...? Apart from the "the guys done nothing comment" (which is debatable), nothing seemed blatantly stupid/arrogant/trollish about it.

 

She has conservative views. How does that make her a troll?

 

I'm holding back a "oh right, everyone here's a teenage liberal", because I know the second I say that this whole thing will degrade into typical "us vs them" american politics. So let's not go down that road >_>.

 

Obama done nothing.

85% approve of current health care.

FOX News being fair and balanced.

 

Three 100% false statements. I would rather assume someone is trolling than they believe blatantly false information.

 

EDIT: Plus mentioning the President's race, which is completely irrelevant.

 

Race isn't irrelevant, many people voted for him because he appeared black, and that was the only reason. Now these people are realizing their mistake, as the man can't run the country.

 

Heck, [technically] he's not even supposed to be making laws. That's the House and Senate's job, he just signs them into law or vetoes them. There's a reason there's an executive branch and a legislative branch.

[Nadril]

1) None of those things have been achieved yet, (besides stimulus package, which is arguably the worst of them) it's the same as him saying he'll do something and he still hasn't. Either way the things you mention aren't the biggest problems facing America today. People are stupid, we shouldn't be making it easier for them to be stupid (which is what the credit card bill is); and the rest of the things you mention only help certain areas of the United States/are highly controversial and aren't logistically probable; one could also argue that most of them are things that state or city jurisdiction should cover, not federal.

 

How is it bad? You know you would be complaining too if he didn't let out a stimulus package and we ended up even worse than before. He's pretty much stopped/slowed the free fall of the economy, and there isn't much you can do other than slowly wait for it to go up.

 

 

2) Either way, 85% being insured is still supporting the fact that Obama needs not to go about national healthcare in this way. If 85% of people are insured, that implies they're happy enough with their current care to be insured by it. One could suggest that the 15% uninsured are unemployed or underemployed and perhaps all of this 'work' could be better spent creating jobs for them.

 

How does that mean you are happy with it? You pretty much need health care in this country. A lot of people's jobs also give health care included in a benefits package. There are a lot of people who are unhappy with health care and the way things are working right now, but they still have it because you'd be stupid not to.

 

And the stimulus package has been giving jobs, I mean what the hell do you think it is used for? You slam it in the sentence above but it and bailing out some of the high up car companies such as GM is saving/creating a lot of jobs. So what is it you want, do you want him to not create jobs or to create jobs?

 

Also as far as health care goes, we still spend a lot even if we would do nothing. When those people get hurt who aren't insured, who do you think pays for that? Hospitals write up a lot of expenses on helping those who don't have insurance, because the way our country is you aren't going to turn someone down who is [bleep]ing hurt. Anyways I thought the current health care "public option" idea works fine, because it gives you and the state a choice.

 

Fox is the only national news channel to attempt to offer both sides.

 

olololololololol. I don't watch news channels either, like indy, but lol. Saying that Fox gives both sides is really funny, hell you believing that they do is even better.

[Guthorm]

3) Semi-unrelated; I can't stand NPR. Either way, Fox is the only national news channel to attempt to offer both sides, as stated before the rest are blatantly liberal.

 

I am sorry, but this is wrong. Fox news definitely does not "attempt" to represent both sides. For example the elementary school song incident. The event happened during black history month, where famous African-Americans are been recognized such as Douglass, MLK Jr, Rosa Parks etc etc. Now with Obama being the first African American president in the United States, what is wrong with the teacher teach students songs about the president? Thats freaking no worse than telling that Washington never lies. Besides the lyrics have been send home to parents and nobody complained about it. Now SEVEN month later, Fox suddenly decides that Obama planned the whole thing in order to brain wash our youth just like Hitler because one school in New Jersey teaches a song about Obama, which he had nothing to do with in the first place.

 

Also, few days ago the white house told Fox to back off a bit, and now Fox is screaming media censorship. But in 2001 when president Bush tell CNN(or is it MSNBC) to lay off, Fox screamed why did not the president do it sooner? What? Somehow Fox news became the voice of America and the other media are just scum?

 

So in reality, Fox news is really really bad.

 

PS: Really I do not know what we are debating about, to be honest Obama has not delivered the majority of his promises, and until then I see no point trying to trying to "prove" that he is a good/bad president.

 

PPS: I am a communist, so I am half-liberal I would say. :lol:

[Hawks]

@FOX News comment: I said 'attempted', I didn't say they actually did, I know they're conservatively bent, why else would I watch them?

 

Fox might go overboard on somethings but the other news channels don't even mention them. Plus he's only half-black if you really want to get technical.

 

And the stimulus package has been giving jobs, I mean what the hell do you think it is used for? You slam it in the sentence above but it and bailing out some of the high up car companies such as GM is saving/creating a lot of jobs. So what is it you want, do you want him to not create jobs or to create jobs?

 

Also as far as health care goes, we still spend a lot even if we would do nothing. When those people get hurt who aren't insured, who do you think pays for that? Hospitals write up a lot of expenses on helping those who don't have insurance, because the way our country is you aren't going to turn someone down who is [bleep]ing hurt. Anyways I thought the current health care "public option" idea works fine, because it gives you and the state a choice.

 

There are better ways to save jobs than by spending money. There's this thing called 'lowering taxes'. It works by lessening the amount of money businesses and people have to pay to the government, therefore giving them more money to spend; businesses can pay their employees more or hire more, or offer more benefits to them. People can spend more, therefore giving the businesses more money to spend, and since there's more money for consumers, businesses [theoretically] also make more money, so the government still gets their taxes in the end [although they're slightly less].

 

I live in what is probably the worst state in terms of unemployment and the whole car company debacle (Michigan). We have something like a 11% unemployment rate, not counting those underemployed and who have stopped looking for work. Our governor promised to 'blow us away' when she was reelected and she's done just that by completely missing the point of her original comment. She's wasted taxpayer money going overseas to then bring back jobs numbering just hundreds, when the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector alone total thousands. Our budget is completely f'ed up, we're losing all sorts of funding for our schools (which were and are the only thing we've got going for us less tourism) and the state scholarship is gone, even for this year's college freshmen.

 

What has 'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' (whatever the heck it is) done for us? Repaved hundreds of roads that didn't need to be repaved! And left hundreds more that did untouched! We have freaking signs EVERYWHERE that say this project (which is unnecessary) was funded by it; the signs alone probably burned a fourth of the budget. There's a reason the National Recovery Act was repealed in the 1930s! IT DIDN'T WORK!

 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on Wikipedia <-- look at the excessive spending in the healthcare and Social Security benefits. IT GAVE 1.3 BILLION TO AMTRAK!

 

Boo hoo, the feds have less money to spend. Then SPEND LESS! The only ways the depressions have ever ended is a ) worldwide war [which better not be happening anytime soon] and b ) lower taxes and lower spending by the government.

 

And the picture reminds me. American cars are nothing but crap and can't really be called American either. Obama didn't save any jobs by bailing out the car companies, they still laid off and fired thousands of workers. He just prevented them from disappearing forever, and a bunch of brands are doing that anyway. The real problem with the car companies is the unions; why weren't the car companies making money? Because they were paying excessive benefits to their retired workers (something like full health benefits for free plus a pension) and the unions kept trying to up their wages. My parents work(ed) at jobs requiring 4 year college degrees and won't get that when they retire.

 

We don't need unions anymore. The Teamsters union is one of the hugest problems. Trucks pollute a lot more than trains. Yet a most of the over-land transport is done by truck. Oh guess what? They support Obama. So Obama won't do anything to bother them even though they pollute a great deal, directly and indirectly (clogging up highways and city streets resulting in longer idling and commuting times for everyone) and he's all about 'going green' with crap-and-trade and all of that.

[Guthorm]

There are better ways to save jobs than by spending money. There's this thing called 'lowering taxes'. It works by lessening the amount of money businesses and people have to pay to the government, therefore giving them more money to spend; businesses can pay their employees more or hire more, or offer more benefits to them. People can spend more, therefore giving the businesses more money to spend, and since there's more money for consumers, businesses [theoretically] also make more money, so the government still gets their taxes in the end [although they're slightly less].

 

I am afraid everything is not as simple as "reducing taxes". Yes in certain cases decreasing taxes will help, but in other cases, it will not. If the economic crisis is easily solved with decreased taxes, then why the hell didn't the government do it before? You gave an example of how tax cuts may work out in favor of the economy, but what about a different situation. For example because the government has to spend money on certain things such as maintenance, loans to commercial banks, the two freaking wars we are having right now, money is absolutely required. Now if the government decrease tax income, they would have to do other things to raise income such as releasing bonds or print more money, which in return can lead to massive inflation.

 

Of course the situation which you have described may happen as well, but it is very wrong to assume that somehow only tax cuts can magically fix the economy. The government must handle certain things in which the people cannot, and to do them, they require money.

[Hawks]

There are better ways to save jobs than by spending money. There's this thing called 'lowering taxes'. It works by lessening the amount of money businesses and people have to pay to the government, therefore giving them more money to spend; businesses can pay their employees more or hire more, or offer more benefits to them. People can spend more, therefore giving the businesses more money to spend, and since there's more money for consumers, businesses [theoretically] also make more money, so the government still gets their taxes in the end [although they're slightly less].

 

I am afraid everything is not as simple as "reducing taxes". Yes in certain cases decreasing taxes will help, but in other cases, it will not. If the economic crisis is easily solved with decreased taxes, then why the hell didn't the government do it before? You gave an example of how tax cuts may work out in favor of the economy, but what about a different situation. For example because the government has to spend money on certain things such as maintenance, loans to commercial banks, the two freaking wars we are having right now, money is absolutely required. Now if the government decrease tax income, they would have to do other things to raise income such as releasing bonds or print more money, which in return can lead to massive inflation.

 

Of course the situation which you have described may happen as well, but it is very wrong to assume that somehow only tax cuts can magically fix the economy. The government must handle certain things in which the people cannot, and to do them, they require money.

 

You can't spend money to save money. The way to get out of a depression is not to spend more money. It's to keep the money that's in the economy in the economy. Spending 3 trillion dollars to get out of a depression only leads to more depression in the future due to high taxes because the government will have to pay back all that money [to China :roll: ] somehow. If we need the tax money to keep fighting the war, why doesn't Obama just get us out of it so he can cut taxes. There's nothing the federal government truly needs to do except provide a military and a higher judicial court. If we want something else we can pay for it ourselves.

 

The [federal] government needn't handle 'certain things in which the people cannot', besides a collaborative military and a high court. States could do that themselves but it wouldn't work.

 

Why the hell didn't they do it before? Because they have ulterior motives? Because they can't run a country?

[Guthorm]

Actually spending money does help the economy. For example FDR spend tax money to create more jobs so unemployement rate will drop. With a higher working population the people will have more spending power in order to boost the economy. Obama is bailing or trying to at least try to save companies so the employees will not be out of jobs, and in the future they will be able to hire more.

 

Of course this is only one possible situation, your idea that tax cut is the only way is very wrong. I am not saying tax cuts will never work, is just that it is not the only way. Also you think the government did not do this of ulterior motives? What motives? If tax cuts is trurly that effective, would not the government implement this just to ensure election? I am sorry to say this, but your logic makes no sense to me.

 

PS: I am on wii right now, so please any errors.

[Nadril]

There are better ways to save jobs than by spending money. There's this thing called 'lowering taxes'. It works by lessening the amount of money businesses and people have to pay to the government, therefore giving them more money to spend; businesses can pay their employees more or hire more, or offer more benefits to them. People can spend more, therefore giving the businesses more money to spend, and since there's more money for consumers, businesses [theoretically] also make more money, so the government still gets their taxes in the end [although they're slightly less].

 

I am afraid everything is not as simple as "reducing taxes". Yes in certain cases decreasing taxes will help, but in other cases, it will not. If the economic crisis is easily solved with decreased taxes, then why the hell didn't the government do it before? You gave an example of how tax cuts may work out in favor of the economy, but what about a different situation. For example because the government has to spend money on certain things such as maintenance, loans to commercial banks, the two freaking wars we are having right now, money is absolutely required. Now if the government decrease tax income, they would have to do other things to raise income such as releasing bonds or print more money, which in return can lead to massive inflation.

 

Of course the situation which you have described may happen as well, but it is very wrong to assume that somehow only tax cuts can magically fix the economy. The government must handle certain things in which the people cannot, and to do them, they require money.

 

You can't spend money to save money. The way to get out of a depression is not to spend more money. It's to keep the money that's in the economy in the economy. Spending 3 trillion dollars to get out of a depression only leads to more depression in the future due to high taxes because the government will have to pay back all that money [to China :roll: ] somehow. If we need the tax money to keep fighting the war, why doesn't Obama just get us out of it so he can cut taxes. There's nothing the federal government truly needs to do except provide a military and a higher judicial court. If we want something else we can pay for it ourselves.

 

 

Actually spending money does help the economy. For example FDR spend tax money to create more jobs so unemployement rate will drop. With a higher working population the people will have more spending power in order to boost the economy. Obama is bailing or trying to at least try to save companies so the employees will not be out of jobs, and in the future they will be able to hire more.

 

^ This. Not spending money is what is going to hurt in the long run. It means that people will lose jobs because companies will have to lay them off in order to stay afloat themselves. With people out of a job they will spend less, which means less money going to companies which means that they will have to lay off even more workers... and you get the idea. It's a really vicious cycle.

 

So sure, maybe things would have evened out if we wouldn't have done a stimulus package. However are you willing to wager all of the jobs that would be lost if it didn't even out? If they didn't bail out GM that would have been thousands of jobs right there, for example.

 

 

It's not as easy as just "saving up" like you would like to believe, hawkxs.

[Range_This11]

And the picture reminds me. American cars are nothing but crap and can't really be called American either. Obama didn't save any jobs by bailing out the car companies, they still laid off and fired thousands of workers. He just prevented them from disappearing forever, and a bunch of brands are doing that anyway. The real problem with the car companies is the unions; why weren't the car companies making money? Because they were paying excessive benefits to their retired workers (something like full health benefits for free plus a pension) and the unions kept trying to up their wages. My parents work(ed) at jobs requiring 4 year college degrees and won't get that when they retire.

Hahaha.

 

Sounds like those people wouldn't need full healthcare from their former employees if they had national healthcare. Quite solves the problem, doesn't it?

[champion]

The house passes health care bill.

[Saru Inc]

The house passes health care bill.

 

 

I'm livid about that. How stupid can [bleep]ing americans get. I mean goddamn. I [bleep]ing hate Obama and his [developmentally delayed] servant pelosi.

 

 

inb4racist

 

 

edit:

Actually spending money does help the economy. For example FDR spend tax money to create more jobs so unemployement rate will drop. With a higher working population the people will have more spending power in order to boost the economy. Obama is bailing or trying to at least try to save companies so the employees will not be out of jobs, and in the future they will be able to hire more.

 

^ This. Not spending money is what is going to hurt in the long run. It means that people will lose jobs because companies will have to lay them off in order to stay afloat themselves. With people out of a job they will spend less, which means less money going to companies which means that they will have to lay off even more workers... and you get the idea. It's a really vicious cycle.

 

So sure, maybe things would have evened out if we wouldn't have done a stimulus package. However are you willing to wager all of the jobs that would be lost if it didn't even out? If they didn't bail out GM that would have been thousands of jobs right there, for example.

 

 

It's not as easy as just "saving up" like you would like to believe, hawkxs.

 

 

FDR and his dumb New Deal didn't stop the Depression at all. :XD: Ww2 did.

[indy500fan]

I'm livid about that. How stupid can [bleep]ing americans get. I mean goddamn. I [bleep]ing hate Obama and his [developmentally delayed] servant pelosi.

 

 

inb4racist

 

I'm not going to say racist because once again, race has nothing to do with this.

 

Health insurance for every American is needed, if for nothing else to give American companies the same advantage as foreign competitors. Small businesses can't afford to pay a decent salary and pay for part of health insurance, meaning they will only get the least qualified people. Large corporations can afford it, but health insurance costs are tremendous. How are Ford/GM supposed to compete with Toyota when Japan provides universal health care for all it's citizens?

 

Health insurance is one of the socialist programs that aren't necessary (such as courts, police and military) but is one that is more efficient that capitalist counterparts (such as roads, bulk mail).

[Saru Inc]

Tbh, my only problem with Healthcare is that it's universal. Hah. I know that means I basically hate the whole bill. But I just wish it was standard, but you didn't have to have it. I mean, I don't want to have to pay for more stuff I don't want outta my paycheck. I'm a tad fat, but besides that, I run 2 miles everyday and eat semi-healthy. I have a pre-existing condition so I most likely will not get Swine FLu. I have no need for Health Insurance.

[Range_This11]

Everyone is fine with not having a government funded healthcare system when they're healthy.

[Nadril]

Everyone is fine with not having a government funded healthcare system when they're healthy.

 

haha exactly. Do you mean to tell me you're never going to get hurt, or sick, Saruman? Everyone needs health insurance.

[Saru Inc]

Hehe. What O mean is, if I'm going to have insurance, I want to decide how much, what kind etc.

[Guthorm]

Hehe. What O mean is, if I'm going to have insurance, I want to decide how much, what kind etc.

 

I do not know about you, but I am sure that I heard the government run health care is not mandatory, which means you are free to choose a private run insurance company if you wish.

[Saru Inc]

Yea but you gotta pay a fine.

[Rebdragon]

Yea but you gotta pay a fine.

Sources?

 

I honestly don't see a problem with Universal Healthcare. Oh, but you're happy with your current healthcare? Stop being a douche. If the 85% that are happy don't want to take a little time to help the 15% that aren't happy, then those 85% have no idea what it means to be an American citizen.

Stop being a douche? Stop being a douche? You, a child doesn't rely on personal income and has no idea about severe taxes, are telling people who already pay 55% of their income to the government to stop being douches and cough up even more money? Alright, fine. Have it your way.

 

So UHC passes and taxes change. Wait, you increase their taxes any more and, hey! A lotta them top earners'll just stop working. The amount of work, risk and stress they put in won't be worth the effort of having over 60% of their money taken. But... uh, oh, big problem! The top 1% currently pay 40% of the nation's income taxes! So you just increased tax burden and the deficit's increasing even faster! But you're right, UHC is only a trillion dollars over the next decade, so no biggy. Oh, I forgot to mention: that trillion dollar cost of UHC? Ya, take one glance at Medicare and Medicaid and you'll see that in reality the cost'll be much higher than the estimates. So now our deficit's over the edge, and their ain't no goin' back because so many people rely on UHC, just like with Medicare and Medicaid!

 

Idealism's cute. It doesn't work in the real world.

 

What's wrong with a public option? Yes, it'll cost money, but for God's sake, we're already spending a [cabbage] ton of that on every little thing. A public option is really the only way to keep people (like me) from being constantly cluster[bleep]ed by big insurance companies.

Money. Does. Not. Grow. On. Trees.

 

Do I need to repeat that? Or should I not bother to defeat the infallible idea that because we're already sending this country into fiscal ruin that we should speed up the process?

 

How is a public option any better than a private one? Microsmic public policy examples in states like Massachusetts and New York have shown that government intervention in healthcare only increases costs over time, regardless of promises. Public option does not solve the problem of rapidly increasing cost in healthcare, it just redistributes the wealth in paying for it.

 

Removal of state barriers for insurance. Tort reform. Removal of business healthcare offering. These kinds of things will decrease cost through lowering of such factors as doctor malpracice insurance and increasing consumer awareness when receiving care. Not UHC.

 

Everyone is fine with not having a government funded healthcare system when they're healthy.

 

haha exactly. Do you mean to tell me you're never going to get hurt, or sick, Saruman? Everyone needs health insurance.

Not anymore. The bill clearly states that private insurance companies will not be allowed to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions. I.e., no one in their right mind is going to buy health insurance until they get sick.

[Wisp]

 

I'm thirteen.

Hehe, it occurs to me you joined the forums when you were 11.

[Rebdragon]

Crud, my bad. I thought you were like seventeen. Glad to see you at least care about world events lol.