Health Care Debate - who gets hurt? helped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can have more competition by allowing people to deduct healthcare on their taxes and opening up buying insurance state to state.

These are two plans that the GOP puts forth - although they are repeatedly accused of not having a plan at all. If you DON'T get employer sponsored medical insurance, you SHOULD be able to deduct your policy (subject to reasonable levels) costs from your income taxes. Pre-existing conditions need to be covered some how too - I realize that by definition insurance premiums are set based on risk, and some pre-existing conditions are high-risk. Lastly, there need to be realistic lifetime caps on benefits so a very sick child or young adult who recovers can get insurance. This is called "reform" - we don't need to start over from scratch and believe the govt. can manage this better than the private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Has it ever dawned on supportes of a gov option that sensible people see that cash for clunkers has turned into a disaster, stimulus has turned into a disaster, and the auto bailout was a waste?"

Wow, you certainly are not an economist. The economic interventions were about warding off falling off a cliff which it has done. As much as I dislike Bush I have to give him credit for using TARP funds to keep the auto industry from dumping in December. The auto bailout wsa not about saving the auto industry longterm but not putting a death nail in the economy at a critical point. I have to give Obama credit for getting through a stimulus that kept us out of depression and shortens the recession. If anyone believes that any one action or even combination is actions will take us back to the prosperity of the gasp Clinton years you are just crazy. The deeper the spiral down the longer it takes to dig out. This is a simple concept. The stimulus will not end the recession it is not big enough. It did however bring more confidence to stabilze the downward spiral. It also had a less publicized affect on keeping some of the starving states alive a little longer.

The democrats being for euthanasia is just a stupid comment. Its embarrassing that the Republicans can't do better than smear tactics.

You are not an economist either, especially of you think the stimulus has kept us out of a depression-get out of your Washington bubble comprised of parasites who suck off the tit of the feds to keep their comfortable and secure way of life and talk to the REAL folks really struggling with jobs and mortgages they cannot pay. Unemployment number are not even counting the millions that have been cut to part time and reduced hours. We are not out of the woods yet, the economic news is not getting better, and furthermore, only 12% of the stimulus has been spent, the rest is sitting in a state of bureaucratic rigormortis. I'm not sure with only 12% spent how one could declare that it has saved us from the apocalypse. I’m not sure what Obama camp you just spent your summer vacation at, but the economy is not recovering…that is what those of us who have not spent time in thought-reform camp call propaganda.

But then again, I bet your foggy understanding of history leads you to believe that FDR pulled us out of the depression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the liberals are sending the democrats on a death march. The polls are starting to say the same thing. I listen to CSPAN open phones just about every day and the tone has dramatically changed, even among democrats and definitly among moderates. The far left is just about as spitting mad at the far right, they now seem to have a common enemy.

Obama would have had better success if he had not supported and touted credit for the stimulus package working...just to see the next day economic news take a plunge. If he wants to take credit, then he should be prepared to take the fall. No one is beliving the economy has turned around.

Has it ever dawned on supportes of a gov option that sensible people see that cash for clunkers has turned into a disaster, stimulus has turned into a disaster, and the auto bailout was a waste? WHY would anyone want a gov option? Look, I think in theory that a gov option is a great and humane approach, however I have NO FAITH WHATSOEVER,at all, none, nill, zilch that the government is capable of administering healthcare. Everything they touch becomes a debacle. I do not believe that a crap option is better than no option. I do believe that baby steps should be taken in the form of tax credits for ALL healthcare related expenses and more federal regulation of existing insurance companies. Maybe if the gov can successfully pull off some small steps, then people might have a little faith.

I can't help, but think to the story of Icarus when I think of Obama.

Let's have some perspective here. First, no one has been able to rein in health care. We have a problem in this country with health care, and the numbers do not lie. Whatever he does or doesn't accomplish, it will be more than all postwar presidents in this area. The worst is that this all comes to nothing, like Hillarycare, and then he goes on to the next thing.

The economy is turning around. When Bush was President, his own people were running around like chickens with their heads cut off saying the sky was falling. Why? Because the sky was actually falling. So quibbling about the details of bailout x or stimulus y seems like nitpicking the details. Our banking system did not collapse, nor did our economy. Good enough for me. They can clean up the mistakes they made going forward, but both administrations did a pretty good job not cratering this one. I expected them to screw some things up moving as fast as they did, but had they moved slow we would have been screwed.

We are on our way to getting out of Iraq, that albatross around our neck.

This president is hardly Icarus. He's handling several things at the same time, and doing it well. Two months ago people were whining about something else. Six months later we will move on to the next set of gripes. But 8 years from now, this presidency is going to look about as good as it gets.

Oh YES out of Iraq! Oh, but wait, did you forget Afganistan? Or is that not a war? Troops are not coming home, troops are moving into Afganistan. The location has changed, but the players have not. Where is the protest, the outrage? How is the albaross off? Do you somehow think the cost of doing business in Afganistan is somehow lower?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the liberals are sending the democrats on a death march. The polls are starting to say the same thing. I listen to CSPAN open phones just about every day and the tone has dramatically changed, even among democrats and definitly among moderates. The far left is just about as spitting mad at the far right, they now seem to have a common enemy.

Obama would have had better success if he had not supported and touted credit for the stimulus package working...just to see the next day economic news take a plunge. If he wants to take credit, then he should be prepared to take the fall. No one is beliving the economy has turned around.

Has it ever dawned on supportes of a gov option that sensible people see that cash for clunkers has turned into a disaster, stimulus has turned into a disaster, and the auto bailout was a waste? WHY would anyone want a gov option? Look, I think in theory that a gov option is a great and humane approach, however I have NO FAITH WHATSOEVER,at all, none, nill, zilch that the government is capable of administering healthcare. Everything they touch becomes a debacle. I do not believe that a crap option is better than no option. I do believe that baby steps should be taken in the form of tax credits for ALL healthcare related expenses and more federal regulation of existing insurance companies. Maybe if the gov can successfully pull off some small steps, then people might have a little faith.

I can't help, but think to the story of Icarus when I think of Obama.

Let's have some perspective here. First, no one has been able to rein in health care. We have a problem in this country with health care, and the numbers do not lie. Whatever he does or doesn't accomplish, it will be more than all postwar presidents in this area. The worst is that this all comes to nothing, like Hillarycare, and then he goes on to the next thing.

The economy is turning around. When Bush was President, his own people were running around like chickens with their heads cut off saying the sky was falling. Why? Because the sky was actually falling. So quibbling about the details of bailout x or stimulus y seems like nitpicking the details. Our banking system did not collapse, nor did our economy. Good enough for me. They can clean up the mistakes they made going forward, but both administrations did a pretty good job not cratering this one. I expected them to screw some things up moving as fast as they did, but had they moved slow we would have been screwed.

We are on our way to getting out of Iraq, that albatross around our neck.

This president is hardly Icarus. He's handling several things at the same time, and doing it well. Two months ago people were whining about something else. Six months later we will move on to the next set of gripes. But 8 years from now, this presidency is going to look about as good as it gets.

Oh YES out of Iraq! Oh, but wait, did you forget Afganistan? Or is that not a war? Troops are not coming home, troops are moving into Afganistan. The location has changed, but the players have not. Where is the protest, the outrage? How is the albaross off? Do you somehow think the cost of doing business in Afganistan is somehow lower?

A. I don't expect everything fixed in the first year. Only fictional presidents fix everything by the season finale.
B. Iraq was a drag on our entire economy.
C. We have legitimate security concerns in Afghanistan that need to be addressed. IMO Iraq was never a threat to our population. That's why pretty much the entire world supported us going into Afghanistan, and almost the entire world was against us going into Iraq.

Get Jeb Bartlett if you want it all.

[Anonymous]

OK this is an anonymous forum so I'll ask the question going through my mind on this...do any of yor Republicans actually believe some of the false rhetoric out there or do you actually a believe a foxnews poll even though it is blatantly and obviously flawed/fabricated? I have some moderate Republican friends who will readily admit that this is embarrassing and bogus to them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK this is an anonymous forum so I'll ask the question going through my mind on this...do any of yor Republicans actually believe some of the false rhetoric out there or do you actually a believe a foxnews poll even though it is blatantly and obviously flawed/fabricated? I have some moderate Republican friends who will readily admit that this is embarrassing and bogus to them too.

I do, but the Democrats are putting out just as much false rhetoric beginning with the true number of uninsured in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK this is an anonymous forum so I'll ask the question going through my mind on this...do any of yor Republicans actually believe some of the false rhetoric out there or do you actually a believe a foxnews poll even though it is blatantly and obviously flawed/fabricated? I have some moderate Republican friends who will readily admit that this is embarrassing and bogus to them too.

Not sure which poll you feel is so flawed, but how about this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082004305_pf.html

The drop in support for the public option has been particularly steep among political independents, the closely watched group so critical to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Obama's victory last year. Two months ago, independents supported the public option by a 2 to 1 ratio. Now, 50 percent are in favor, and 47 percent are opposed.

This is a Washington Post-ABC News poll. This was the MOST FAVORABLE to Obama of several recent polls from multiple sources.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I am happy with the town halls - at least we are thinking and talking about the issues. True, there are some nut jobs out there - on both sides of the argument too. It is disappointing when I hear politicians tell us to shut up already, that they (the politicians) know what is best even thought THEY will not agree to be subject to the public option that is best for us. Keep talking - an informed electorate is needed for a successful democracy.

[Anonymous]

It is disappointing when I hear politicians tell us to shut up already, that they (the politicians) know what is best

Disagree. I think that less input from uninformed people or those "informed" by deliberately spread false info would be helpful to the process. Popular opinion is often against the best and most reasonable way forward on issues - if our elected leaders had the guts to do things anyway despite very vocal (although often mis/un-informed) opinions, we'd be better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK this is an anonymous forum so I'll ask the question going through my mind on this...do any of yor Republicans actually believe some of the false rhetoric out there or do you actually a believe a foxnews poll even though it is blatantly and obviously flawed/fabricated? I have some moderate Republican friends who will readily admit that this is embarrassing and bogus to them too.

I do, but the Democrats are putting out just as much false rhetoric beginning with the true number of uninsured in this country.

Well, that's just idiotic. Here are the numbers produced by the government under the Bush Administration: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is disappointing when I hear politicians tell us to shut up already, that they (the politicians) know what is best

Disagree. I think that less input from uninformed people or those "informed" by deliberately spread false info would be helpful to the process. Popular opinion is often against the best and most reasonable way forward on issues - if our elected leaders had the guts to do things anyway despite very vocal (although often mis/un-informed) opinions, we'd be better off.

I agree too, I wish that you had to pass an intelligence test before voting in a national election, then Acron would not have been able to bus all the morons to the polls.

[Anonymous]

Right but then Palin would have been the first vice presidential candidate barred from voting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is disappointing when I hear politicians tell us to shut up already, that they (the politicians) know what is best

Disagree. I think that less input from uninformed people or those "informed" by deliberately spread false info would be helpful to the process. Popular opinion is often against the best and most reasonable way forward on issues - if our elected leaders had the guts to do things anyway despite very vocal (although often mis/un-informed) opinions, we'd be better off.

I agree too, I wish that you had to pass an intelligence test before voting in a national election, then Acron would not have been able to bus all the morons to the polls.

I'm pretty sure you meant Akron. You did spell moron correctly, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree too, I wish that you had to pass an intelligence test before voting in a national election, then Acron would not have been able to bus all the morons to the polls.

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure you meant Akron. You did spell moron correctly, though.

No, the PP meant Acorn not Akron. It you want to correct other poster's spelling, it works better when you actually make a correction. I will leave the moron comments aside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree too, I wish that you had to pass an intelligence test before voting in a national election, then Acron would not have been able to bus all the morons to the polls.

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure you meant Akron. You did spell moron correctly, though.

No, the PP meant Acorn not Akron. It you want to correct other poster's spelling, it works better when you actually make a correction. I will leave the moron comments aside.

Just curious: Did the Akron poster actually misunderstand what the Acron poster meant? I thought it was intended as a bit of irony.

[Anonymous]

Interesting piece about the British NHS: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/22/nhs/