Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on September 09, 2009, 07:47:24 PM
-
I've got better things to do. Besides, no TV.
-
Listening to it online..................
I'm trying to keep an open mind and listen, but so far it seems a bunch of glossy BS.
(which i'm not surprised by)
WHOA
He just got boo'd by the f'ing congress when he said
"reform will not apply to illegal immigrates"
WTF
-
Waste time listing to a Marxist parasite? I'd sooner eat the contents of my cat's litter box.
-
I did it I listened to his speech and I feel like I ate the contents of your cat's litter box.. He gave no details, it was all glossy promises. I'm not sure if he was annoucing a "new" plan or if it's still the old one he's talking about.
I really did not like the part where congress boo'd him for saying "reform will not apply to illegal immigrates". Not one bit.
-
well he converted one person... on another forum one of the dyed in the wool libs just flipped on him. said she can't believe/trust him/them. if they lied and screwed up cash for clunkers they aren't gonna get to do that to medicine
-
He just got boo'd by the f'ing congress when he said "reform will not apply to illegal immigrates"
LOL! I guess Mr. Obama is not radical enough for congress.
-
I can't stand to listen to him. The lies flow off his lips like maple syrup flows out of maple trees in the spring.
-
So far, I have never subjected myself to the voice of Saruman, except in very small doses.
-
It was interesting when Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie!" during one of Obama's pauses. Specifically, it was when Obama stated that under his plan, illegal immigrants would not be covered by a public health care option.
While some contend that it was disrespectful and unwarranted, I find it to be indicative of the current administration's loss of control and popularity. It would be brazen and bold for anyone to interrupt the President. That it was done by a sitting US Congressman, even more so. I would expect this kind of act in one of the many town hall meetings as of late, but not at this level. Perhaps people have truly had enough, even at the highest levels of our society.
It's going to be an ugly 3.5 years.
-
Unbelievable. He said that his plan would insure more people, give better care, and cost less. Has someone repealed the laws of supply and demand?
He also repeatedly attacked the insurance companies for their evil "profits."
Funny that the profits he made on his book deals, the profits that Oprah and other celebrities make, and the $100 million in profits Al Gore has made from "global warming" are not evil.
Good for Congressman Wilson!
-
LOL! I guess Mr. Obama is not radical enough for congress.
Actually, I believe that the boos were coming from people who believe that his statement was a lie. Joe Wilson from SC even yelled out "LIE!!"
-
So far, I have never subjected myself to the voice of Saruman, except in very small doses.
More like Grima Wormtongue. I mean, we all know Obama isn't really the one calling the shots.
-
Can one catch it on the computer? I was out of the house tonight and missed it.
-
Actually, the boos were coming from people who believe that his statement was a lie. Joe Wilson from SC even yelled out "LIE!!"
We're troublemakers down here in SC. Thank God somebody had the temerity to protest Obama's bullcrap speech.
He also repeatedly attacked the insurance companies for their evil "profits."
Funny that the profits he made on his book deals, the profits that Oprah and other celebrities make, and the $100 million in profits Al Gore has made from "global warming" are not evil.
Hey, profits are evil when the bad corporations are making them, but when your side is making them, well, then they aren't.
-
We're troublemakers down here in SC.
Gonna nullify Obamacare? :lol:
-
Gonna nullify Obamacare? :lol:
If we can get rid of a certain jackass named Lindsay Graham, we might just.
-
So, in what way is it constitutional to spend my hard earned money to purchase health insurance.
I understand car insurance, as driving a car on public roads isn't necessarily a right but rather a privilege. I can buy a car and put it on my property and not have to worry about insurance. I can keep it in the garage, or on the driveway, or in the backyard and not have to worry about insurance.
But, I don't exactly see how there is any power granted to the gov't to make me buy, at my own expense, some health care insurance plan.
-
Good for Congressman Wilson!
Amen!
-
he apologised
-
he apologised
Ah, damn...
-
Wilson may have apologized but maybe what we are recognizing is that the natives are getting restless. Obama has indeed brought "change," and part of that change is a new tone to public and civic intercourse in America. Let's for now just describe it as more "raw," but it takes a lot of bad faith and betrayal to truly rub a lot of Americans the wrong way. And that is where we are right now. Obama is The Great Rubber.
As for the speech, which I heard on the radio while driving, I kept thinking two things: Liar and Autocrat. Obama's cocksure, arrogant tone really grates on me; he is so full of himself. Before it was the bankers and the automobile makers who were The Evil Ones Who Make Profits, now it's the insurance companies. Who's next?
-
Obama is The Great Rubber.
Um...
=D :laugh:
-
Did he really actually call anyone or their profits "evil" or is that something you guys are coming up with on your own?
-
I didn't listen to it all. I heard enough of it to know he's doubling down on lying to the American people.
I know Joe Wilson apologized, but I note that he apologized for "incivility". He did not retract his position, though.
Honestly, he echoed what I was yelling at the radio, anyway.
-
It was interesting when Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie!" during one of Obama's pauses. Specifically, it was when Obama stated that under his plan, illegal immigrants would not be covered by a public health care option.
While some contend that it was disrespectful and unwarranted, I find it to be indicative of the current administration's loss of control and popularity. It would be brazen and bold for anyone to interrupt the President.
If applause, standing ovations, and cheers are acceptable behavior, then I find that jeers are equally acceptable.
-
Here's (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/transcript-president-obama-address-joint-congress-health-care/Story?id=8527252&page=2) page 2 of a transcript of the speech. He doesn't call insurance company profits "evil," but he sure gets close. His salvo against the insurance companies starts at the bottom of the page and continues onto page 3.
Imagine the gall of companies wanting to turn a profit. It's a good thing we're going to have nationalized health insurance where the company can be run so badly that it should be bankrupt, but they'll just raise taxes to cover the poor management. It's going to cost us a hell of a lot more money but at least there won't be those godawful profits.
-
Did he really actually call anyone or their profits "evil" or is that something you guys are coming up with on your own?
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
I believe "evil" is just paraphrasing.
-
I believe "evil" is just paraphrasing.
Umm...those are pretty sad stories. Dropping someone because of an undeclared case of acne? Seriously? That's wrong and I have no problem calling it that.
I didn't get the whole speech so I can't answer the original question, but let's be honest in our assessment.
-
Wilson is my rep. His office is just up the hill from me. What is so interesting about his outburst is he is a VERY polite and proper gentlemen. His manner of speech is commonly found in Charleston blue hose circles. For him to say what he said where he said it must be a direct measure of his frustration with the president's association with truth.
I read it as he was mightily provoked to forthright and unambiguous words. I sent him a letter saying perhaps we need a little less comity and a lot more truth in congress.
-
Umm...those are pretty sad stories. Dropping someone because of an undeclared case of acne? Seriously? That's wrong and I have no problem calling it that.
I didn't get the whole speech so I can't answer the original question, but let's be honest in our assessment.
Sure, there are some really crummy stories out there involving insurance. No system is perfect (some are much better than others).
These anti-insurance stories are so uncommon and unusual that it's stupid, and borderline dishonest, to mention them in a general speech on the health insurance system or industry. It has no relevance to the discussion unless your goal is to isolate and demonize the opposition Alinski-style.
-
Umm...those are pretty sad stories. Dropping someone because of an undeclared case of acne? Seriously? That's wrong and I have no problem calling it that.
I didn't get the whole speech so I can't answer the original question, but let's be honest in our assessment.
Yep, that would be wrong. However, it's just another of the misrepresentations in the President's speech.
From: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875&ft=1&f=1001
One of Barton's constituents, Robin Beaton of Waxahachie, Texas, did know that her health history included acne and a rapid heartbeat. But she didn't think they were relevant to her current health and left them off her application.
After she was diagnosed with breast cancer and was scheduled for a double mastectomy, her insurer cancelled her policy, leaving her devastated.
Emphasis mine.
Oh yeah, that acne's why they dropped it! It's not like a HEART PROBLEM is a major issue insurers might want to know about.
Again, seems like Joe Wilson said it best.
-
Is a "rapid heartbeat" relevant though? My own heart tends to run fast even though I'm fairly athletic (resting is in the low 70s unless I've been biking a lot in the past month). While moving around (like walking across the room) or exercising, my heart speeds up quickly and doesn't come back down very quickly (could be in the 80s half an hour after exercising). I wouldn't consider it a health issue and wouldn't think to mention it to a doctor (my last EKG was normal).
The heart issue isn't related to the breast cancer, but it was a convenient excuse to drop someone after being diagnosed with what will be an expensive and difficult treatment. People frequently have treatment for breast cancer with worse heart problems (my grandmother, for example).
Chris
-
And? She lied when filling out her health insurance forms. She had a condition she knew about and didn't put it down.
When Uncle Sam takes over our health care, and realizes how much lying about pre existing conditions cost, I bet it becomes a crime.
-
Is a "rapid heartbeat" relevant though? My own heart tends to run fast even though I'm fairly athletic (resting is in the low 70s unless I've been biking a lot in the past month). While moving around (like walking across the room) or exercising, my heart speeds up quickly and doesn't come back down very quickly (could be in the 80s half an hour after exercising). I wouldn't consider it a health issue and wouldn't think to mention it to a doctor (my last EKG was normal).
The heart issue isn't related to the breast cancer, but it was a convenient excuse to drop someone after being diagnosed with what will be an expensive and difficult treatment. People frequently have treatment for breast cancer with worse heart problems (my grandmother, for example).
Chris
In this case she was diagnosed with a rapid heartbeat. Not, oh, my heart might run a little fast, but a doctor had diagnosed this in the past.
It may have nothing to do with the problem she had when they dropped her, but she lied by leaving that out.
-
Like JJ says, if you think claims denial is bad now...
-
If the Dems want to pass this thing by one vote and own it, they can--if they have the guts and the temerity. They can give Obama his Pyrrhic victory on health care "reform." But what we saw with Wilson is just the beginning of new times in America. Decorum is a lovely thing, but when the prevailing process becomes riddled with bad faith and mendacity, it is just another form of repression. Wilson was speaking truth to power--isn't that exactly what the radical left is so enamored of?
What I heard was an I-obsessed egomaniac denouncing the profit system even though he lacks any semblance of expertise much less a claim to a higher morality. When he gives away the millions he's earned from his two premature autobiographies and starts a non-profit health care clinic in D.C. I'll listen more closely--but I still won't agree with his policies.
-
Wow, even the AP is pointing out Obama's lack of veracity:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
Note how they gloss over the Republican objection that there is no enforcement mechanism for the "No illegals" claim, though.
I also note they didn't get to the "death panels" claim. Fortunately, Sarah Palin did:
Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.
In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.
In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.
From: http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
Note AGAIN that her point still stands and the President and his allies ignore it and claim "That's not going to happen".
I'm sick of people who either can't understand that what they want and what will happen may not be the same thing (unintended consequences) or continue to lie about it.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they're too stupid to understand it.
-
But, I don't exactly see how there is any power granted to the gov't to make me buy, at my own expense, some health care insurance plan.
Or to fine me $3800 if I don't carry health insurance.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AJGOQG2
-
Yep, Wilson hit the nail on the head.................................chris3
-
What happens when the percentage of people who think you're a liar hits critical mass?
You become a Richard Nixon.
-
Or to fine me $3800 if I don't carry health insurance.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AJGOQG2
I don't want to participate in a government health insurance scheme, and I can't afford it at the moment... so I have to pay $750-950 a year as an individual to enjoy the privilege of not being able to afford health insurance?
Brilliant! Where's that smilie with the head banging against the wall when you need him...
-
I don't want to participate in a government health insurance scheme, and I can't afford it at the moment... so I have to pay $750-950 a year as an individual to enjoy the privilege of not being able to afford health insurance?
Brilliant! Where's that smilie with the head banging against the wall when you need him...
I'm thinking that this number is way too low, and should be a tax instead of a fine. There should be a flat tax of 30% on all insurance premiums paid in the prior calendar year with a minimum tax of $30,000 if there were no premiums paid (to compensate the state for the cost of individuals who don't pay for health insurance). This tax should apply to 2009, and be payable April 15, 2010.
I figure that by April 14, 2010, impeachments, recalls and resignations should reach historic levels and there will be very few incumbents left to run in November.
-
I have a question about the republican response. One of the "areas where we can agree" that Congressman Boustany mentioned was:
insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life
I don't disagree with this at all, but is there something that is preventing or deterring insurers from currently doing this?
-
I don't disagree with this at all, but is there something that is preventing or deterring insurers from currently doing this?
The main reason is because most "preventative care" does NOT reduce your chances of getting sick and does NOT reduce the cost of care. In fact, it increases the cost of care.
-
I have a question about the republican response. One of the "areas where we can agree" that Congressman Boustany mentioned was:
I don't disagree with this at all, but is there something that is preventing or deterring insurers from currently doing this?
One of the reasons they don't is because of the extreme lack of competition in most markets. Thanks to regulations set up by many state insurance commissions, (often paid off by insurance companies) there are limited numbers of insurance companies in any market, which leaves little incentive to compete for consumers.
From Obama's Speech:
Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly
I am not someone who believes that big businesses are inherently evil, but one cannot deny that they are able to buy considerable influence in the legislative process and in regulatory environment of a government that already has too much say in our day to day lives.
Big Government and Big Business are a symbiotic relationship.
-
The main reason is because most "preventative care" does NOT reduce your chances of getting sick and does NOT reduce the cost of care. In fact, it increases the cost of care.
I know what your are saying, but we know about a number of risk factors that increase your chance of needing care. For instance we know that Obesity causes the early onset of all kinds of ailments, such as Diabetes and Haeart disese which require lots of treatment. In my experience, the only health related question that gets asked is "do you smoke" so, a big fatty pays the same premium as a very fit individual. Moreover, with today's actuarial techniques, they are able to to a startlingly accurate cost/benefit analysis.
Ever since I haven't been eligible for my parent's health insurance I have been insured in one way or another though my employer or my wife's employer. They are definitely making some money on me, as I have no chronic conditions that need prescriptions, and the only Dr. appointments that I have had since 1998 have been physicals to clear me for overseas assignments.
-
I don't want to participate in a government health insurance scheme, and I can't afford it at the moment... so I have to pay $750-950 a year as an individual to enjoy the privilege of not being able to afford health insurance?
Brilliant! Where's that smilie with the head banging against the wall when you need him...
Here's the kicker with the public option:
If you can't afford it, they will cover you at the taxpayers expense.
So, not only will I have to come off of my high deductible plan, I'm going to have to pay for someone else's plan.
I'm excited.
-
Here's the kicker with the public option:
If you can't afford it, they will cover you at the taxpayers expense.
So, not only will I have to come off of my high deductible plan, I'm going to have to pay for someone else's plan.
I'm excited.
Don't get too excited. Overexcitement is a contributor to many forms of ill health, and will soon be banned by the administration. :police:
-
So, not only will I have to come off of my high deductible plan, I'm going to have to pay for someone else's plan.
I'm excited.
You're going to be paying for all sorts of people, and for all sorts of treatments that may not be necessary.
I'd like to see barriers between states removed. I'm not sold on the idea of removing pre-existing conditions clauses because premiums would really skyrocket for everyone.
What I want to see, though, is the Republicans stand firm and demand that the entire bill be scrapped, and issues of health care be discussed anew. I'm sure we can deal with the tiny number of people who actually cannot get health insurance, and at a reasonable cost.
-
I have a question about the republican response. One of the "areas where we can agree" that Congressman Boustany mentioned was:
insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life
I don't disagree with this at all, but is there something that is preventing or deterring insurers from currently doing this?
More distortion from Obama. Many insurers do offer such incentives. The last two I have had have offered some pretty nice health and wellness incentives. One hundred percent coverage of annual physicals, subsidized health club memberships, and so on.
It is fairly common, actually.
-
I believe the reference is to the over-regulation of the health insurance industry that Obamacare would bring about. Insurers should be free to pursue whatever strategies lead to lower costs, which are good for both the insurers and their customers. It's hard to come up with creative new incentives when the government is telling you how to run your business.
-
You know, I've long had an idea which I am not sure is good.
Suppose you had a law that said that if a medicine or procedure has been authorized in the European Union, it would immediately receive FDA approval (or at least receive it faster).
My rationale is like this: FDA approval requires expensive tests that cost millions upon millions of dollars. The European approval system is as tight or almost as tight as America's, so once a company did all the tests once and had already complied with the law there, there's no need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do it again.
This would benefit everybody – the healthcare providers, the pharmaceuticals, and clients. This would be fairly mainstream (note I did not say that medicine needs to be untested), and the politicians might accept it.
-
You know, I've long had an idea which I am not sure is good.
Suppose you had a law that said that if a medicine or procedure has been authorized in the European Union, it would immediately receive FDA approval (or at least receive it faster).
My rationale is like this: FDA approval requires expensive tests that cost millions upon millions of dollars. The European approval system is as tight or almost as tight as America's, so once a company did all the tests once and had already complied with the law there, there's no need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do it again.
This would benefit everybody – the healthcare providers, the pharmaceuticals, and clients. This would be fairly mainstream (note I did not say that medicine needs to be untested), and the politicians might accept it.
It will never happen, as it would negate the justification for a massive portion of the FDA's budget. Staffers and politicians won't stand for that kind of thing.
Just remember that whenever the gov't talks about how many thousands of lives will be saved by the approval of drug X, they've allowed that many to die during the years between the EU's approval and the FDA redoing the same work for no purpose except justifying their jobs.
-
heres a good one
http://reason.tv/video/show/get-some