let's not talk about our personalities/character but rather the facts What specifally has the Obama administration done to suppress freedom of speech and thought compared to other administrations in the past? What specifally has the Obama administration done to be intrusive compared to other administrations in the past? What specifally has the Obama administration done to have less love of country and constitution compared to other administrations in the past? What specifally has the Obama administration done to be wasteful at all levels compared to other administrations in the past?
1. It's a 2 part answer, the fairness doctrine is often cited as a POSSIBLE suppression of freedom... and he's black. 2. It's a 2 part answer, he wants to take your guns away and that's a fact Elmer... and he's black. 3. It's a 2 part answer, he wants to appease terrorists by increasing our relations with foreign countries.... and he's a black socialist, facist, communist, baby killer. 4. It's a 2 part answer, he was wasteful because he was the sitting president during the passing of the stimulus package (this would have never have been proposed under Bush!!! DUH)... and he's black.
Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts dont do what I want them to Facts just twist the truth around Facts are living turned inside out Facts are getting the best of them Facts are nothing on the face of things Facts dont stain the furniture Facts go out and slam the door Facts are written all over your face Facts continue to change their shape Im still waiting...Im still waiting...Im still waiting... Im still waiting...Im still waiting...Im still waiting... Im still waiting...Im still waiting...
My life vs. Otto's aspersions; I'll take my actual life. He's not particularly articulate; I said he's good at math.
This is not a "dense" question at all: is it actually quite pertinent. The "tea" started out as an acronym, I believe, for "Taxed Enough Already". This was adopted as a reaction to the FEAR (note: not fact but fear) that taxes would increase under Obama. Of course, this has not been the case, and in fact many will be seeing their taxes cut. But it's a catchy slogan, so it stuck. Unfortunately, so has the perception that Obama is going taxation-crazy. Not true. While I agree that labels are unimportant, it is inevitable to a certain extent. Put two people in the same room and they will find ways to classify themselves separately. Put four people in a room and you'll get Us vs. Them. I really think it's human nature. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment Ahh, herein lies the rub. I don't think people are truly "suspicious" of it. I think, deep down in the cockles of their hearts, it's about a deeper-seeded problem. The age-old American problem of Me vs. We. I think people don't want to pay for the health care of others, and that's really what the public option comes down to: you're paying a price for health care you may or may not use so that others have access to the care when they need it. As Americans, we've been indoctrinated (some might say programmed) to think "me first" rather than "we first". It really doesn't matter if it's better for the country as a whole, or even if it's better for me: I shouldn't have to help the next guy. Pretty sad, really. It may be because the current thinking on Capitol Hill (and, IMHO, it seems to be coming more from the right) that "bi-partisan reform" means "everyone should agree to do it OUR way". Until we can get that straightened out, we face two options: no progress whatsoever or the majority forcing the issue, neither of which are the preferable option.
On the whole, I agree and find your response insightful. Only toward the end would I have slight differences. "We've been indoctrinated ... Pretty said, really," is IMO is true, The "me first" rather than "we first" thought process, again IMO, evolved from the change from a church going nation that was committed to charitable works to a more secular/television/gaming society. As that happened, an unbridled greed corrupted Wall Street by people who learned the benefits of gaming the system. Unfortunately, they learned at the hands of the masters, the statehouse and federal politicians. The genie is out of the bottle now. All we can do is write effective business regulations that favor no particular group and prosecute the regulators who look the other way or at least terminate the inept. TSchmal, like BetterThanI, you are welcome to my threads anytime. Now, the reason people like me are suspicious of the public option stems from several causes. First and foremost, there is the fear of another runaway government bureaucracy that, once created, becomes a nunaway freight train. As you age and study how government should work and how it actually works, you will find that the very nature of any bureaucracy is growth and self-promotion. They tend to gobble up everything, and health care is an irresistable plum for the bureaucrats and pols who gain control. Second, the effects of public option are unclear. For example, what becomes of all the people in the insurance industry as government run health care forces the private carriers out of business? The competition will hardly be fair because the government is so huge its like the Neighborhood Thrift Store competing against Walmart. The government has a national economy of scale coupled with an unlimited money supply as well as the ability to change the rules as it goes along. As I mentioned before in this thread, once a bad tax is passed, it is almost impossible to repeal, given our state of gridlock and partisanship.
Compared to Bush, nothing. So far Obama has become the third term of George Bush. He started his presidency by stating he would "fundamentally change America." We need some fixes, but not fundamental change. Obama has put in some very questionable administrators who were never vetted by Congress. If he didn't know their backgrounds, he sure stumbled across a lot of appointees who scare of schtufings out of normally non-political run-of-the-mill citizens as well as people like Robert Byrd and Russell Feingold. Again, along with his "fundamental change" he is calling for "redistribution of wealth." That doesn't sound like one who loves the current system of government and the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution. Oh, I'd say passing a trillion dollars worth of stimulus and then holding on to the bulk of it until 2011 -- just before the next presidential election. Most of what has been spent hasn't even gone to replacing infrasture, although we have multi-million dollar upgrades and repairs to a Pennsylvania airport that has fewer passengers and takeoffs/landings than the airport in Barrow, Alaska. Oh, yes, he wants a second stimulus before he even gets the first one allocated much less spent.
As you tacitly suggest, I will slow down. I was trying to get responses out to those whom I promised earlier in the afternoon. If you noticed, that included you.....Hey, wait, that was your spelling error, not mine.
How could it become a runaway freight train? We still have checks and balances, regardless of whether this public option gets through or not. If it's voted on and approved, it's not some government takeover. If another issue crops up that also is in favored of a government-run system, it can be rejected just as easily as a public option could've been. However, if the right decision is to have this system run by the government, why should it simply be rejected because it is, in fact, run by the government? This is my biggest beef with all the arguments against a government-run system, really. People seem to be rejecting it simply based on the idea that it's in the direction of socialism or that the government is becoming too controlling. Sometimes having the government run something is in the best interest of everybody and it should be thought about instead of having a knee-jerk rejection because your general political stance is "less government!". Funny, labels aside, that sounds more like a pro-liberal argument than a conservative one... If the government gobbles everything up, why not get rid of this gobbling? If there's all this government waste, how about we get rid of the waste before passing a bill? Why can't the two be separated? These kinds of arguments hold more validity to me, because for the most part I agree with them. If the government option is indeed available and cheaper, what would curtail a company from simply switching to it? In the revenue management industry (which I am in), we call this priceable behavior -- everyone wants the lowest price possible. Do we really believe Americans are priceable customers, always seeking the lowest price regardless of other factors? I think, for some, this is true. However, healthcare is not airline tickets. With an airline, the guy sitting next to you pretty much got the same product as you did but for a different price (maybe he doesn't have a flight change fee or something). In that market, yes, people buy the cheapest product available for the most part. However, in the healthcare market, speaking for myself, I don't just want the cheapest available -- I want the BEST available (monetary constraints notwithstanding). The products between the government-run plan and a commercial plan would be distinctly different; likely, many doctors that you might go to would not be in the government-run plan's network or something. This differential is the only way I can see a commercial carrier maintaining an advantage over the government plan. However, this forces them to innovate. This forces them to provide a better level of service. If they do so, I believe they can survive (and so does the bill proponents, it appears). This is, of course, a point of contention I'm sure. Sorry if I rambled. I kind of type as I think. By the way, I'm not that young (26), I just recently started giving a crap about all of this ever since I had my appendix removed and saw the industry first-hand (though, fortunately, I was well covered). Not only that, but Obama's oration skills has, admittedly, pulled me in a bit.
Bingo! I have made that argument several times. If Obama cuts the waste and fraud first, he will have no problem passing health care in any form he wants.
The redistribution of wealth is part of the progressive income tax. It has been that way for many decades. It didn't start with Obama. Again the tax rates are more favorable now under Obama than they were under Reagan.
The trouble is Obama wants to take it to new heights as well as add a mandatory health tax (okay, he doesn't call it a tax per se but its money that still has to paid to the government). Add the proposed carbon tax, and people making $30,000 to $100,000 annually will get reamed.
I know you are going to respond to Major first, so take your time, but... The carbon tax won't hurt people making 30K-100K. Again he isn't taking taxing the rich or anyone else to new levels, because the levels he has set are less than the levels that were under Reagan all around, and for most people the rates are better than they were under Bush.
Whew. If I miss answering important points, please prompt me. There is a lot of information here. First, I really don’t think any bill needs to be 1,000 pages, because loophole after loophole is created with more language. I realize some points need to be buttoned down, but lawmakers need to practice clear, concise writing to prevent “death panel” controversies, which I agree was invented silliness. However, because the language was imprecise, a great many learned people said, “Whoa, what is this REALLY?” You state that those 47 million people are *already* in the system. They are going to the ER. There is truth to that, but we can do something about that. If they are illegal, we can treat them and send them back to their home country. If they are U.S. citizens, we can get them into Medicaid or one of the charity hospital agencies or hosptals can bill them with small monthly payments. Regarding elimination of waste/fraud in Medicare, Obama can easily pass laws in the Medicare Advantage program. He owns the House, Senate and White House, doesn’t he? That could be done in mere weeks if not days. Showing success would go a long way to prove to the citizenry that he is serious and correct. It would allow him to pass any health care reform he wanted. The CBO estimate shows $800-$1T in costs - not trillions - and no one has suggested otherwise. That depends on the forecast. The CBO has some frightening projections over the next decade when all costs are factored – not just increases. However, projected costs can be stretched or shrunk at will. Regarding the demise of insurance companies under a public option, it is difficult to see how they can compete effectively on price. Every factor goes against them. Granted, the insurance industry has brought this on themselves via their greed, but I think of the hundreds of thousands of sales staff, actuarians, clerks and other working class people who will lose their jobs. The government, even though less efficient, will get national economies of scale. The government can print money when they have a shortfall or the government can change the rules midstream if events are not flowing its way. Another factor is the small to mid-size business owner. If he (or she) sees that the penalty for not providing insurance is less than the cost of the insurance itself, guess what the corporate decision will be. The government gets to have the singer payer option de facto. Regarding the abortion issue, Obama is technically telling the truth but actually being dishonest with the people. I find that disheartening. For example, California Democrat Lois Capps (100% pro-abortion rating by NARAL), introduced the "common ground” amendment. This bill, while appearing to prohibit the abortion mandate, actually calls for the public plan to cover abortions and mandates that at least one abortion-covering plan be available in every U.S. region. The amendment was passed 30-28 and is part of the pending House bill. Now, from a personal standpoint, single payer or public option would benefit me personally, but, as I tried to explain to glynch in another thread, my needs are not germane in comparison to the greater good of future generations. I don’t believe either of these fraternal twins will prove more beneficial than harmful to those who will follow us. Finally, what are my solutions (these from a non-expert)? 1, Insurance reform -- elimination of pre-existing conditions; rate leveling so the price is the same at 5 or 55 or 75; interstate sales of insurance so that one state's citizenry has no an advantage over someone in another state; and insurance industry regulation similar to the FDIC over federal banks. 2. Tax write-offs under specific rules for pharmaceutical research; 10% (or whatever) profit on drug prices over production/delivery cost; elimination of advertisng drugs to the public. Limit that to doctors and nurses. 3. Combining Medicaid and Medicare to reduce the paperwork; extending Medicare coverage to citizens 55 or older; paying the tuition of doctors and nurses and other critical staff who work 10 years at a public clinic or hospital. 4. Introducing tort reforms that reduce lawyer fees to 9% of the total court award; lmiting research fees charged to clients; removing a doctor's credentials for surgical positions in all states if proven negligent in any state; and creating national working standards for medical personnel similar to the rules governing airline pilots.
Obama himself said energy bills would soar dramatically. He now swears it is the cost of a postage stamp daily (42c x 365 = $153.30). The trouble is ... it's not true. Energy bills will easily climb that much, and probably more, for the average person every month, not every year.
This is factually inaccurate. People have pointed out numerous times to you US tax structures over the years, yet you still repeat the claim. (This is why making a separate thread to deal only with the inaccurate "facts" of the teabaggers is something I "find suspicious," and avoided it until someone tried to sanctify twentieth century America's most renowned racist.) Obama's proposed tax plans are generally lower for everyone, including the wealthiest of the wealthy, than at virtually any time over the last century not including the Roaring Twenties and the Bush administrations (which were followed immediately by the Great Depression, a mild recession, and the current medium-major recession). And, specifically, his tax plan calls for increases on individuals/families making over $200G/$250G, and one of the health care plans in the house (unlikely to pass) proposes paying for part of it with taxes on those earning over $250G. How, then, do you justify your $30G-$100G claim? There have been plenty of Exxon-funded think tanks offering up fear-mongering on the cap-and-trade proposal passed by the House. However, per the NY Times, The oft-cited $3100-per-family "energy" or "carbon tax," as you phrase it, is a canard, according to the very people behind the study. (Annenberg Center.) The mandatory "health tax," or a mandate for health insurance coverage, would be subsidized for people (depending on the plan ultimately passed, subject to change, obviously) making up to three or four times the poverty level. It's not money paid to the government, it's money paid to a health insurer of one's choosing, public (if it survives) or private. (The Baucus mandate charges people if they can afford but don't get insurance, but that's unlikely to survive.) Obviously, it would not affect those people who already have insurance, so calling it a tax is highly misleading. Though, personally, I think mandating health insurance coverage is meaningless or potentially cruel without a public option, and that the Baucus plan could likely lead to already near-monopolies, health insurers, jacking up the rates because the public would have little choice but to pay. This is what makes the Baucus plan a potentially bad bill, but this seems to be recognized in the Senate, and it will face needed reforms/amendments going forward. The public option is the best (and possibly only) way to ensure affordable insurance prices going forward. That's why you shouldn't be afraid of another big bureaucracy (I believe you've said in the past you respect Medicare / Social Security, though I could be conflating your views with others of similar mindset), because that bureaucracy is better and cheaper than those that exist with private insurers. The arguments for delaying a public option basically rely on the need for continuing the profits of the private insurers; if the private insurers offer a better deal, great, bully for private industry. If they don't and potentially fail, the government cannot become a monopoly, because the public option does not include a profit motive (the traditional downside of a monopoly) and will not artificially increase prices. It's not an either/or proposition, though. The most efficient way to trim the fat is for a substantial overhaul of the system, not to pick it apart piecemeal. You see the amount of industry-funded opposition and scare tactics believed by the madding crowd. If Obama attempts to do health reform piecemeal, he will further fraction the coalition necessary to pass it. Right now, insurance companies and their lobbyists are fighting to keep the public option from being passed, hoping weaker co-ops or impossible-to-meet triggers are passed instead; however, they're playing along because they want a piece of the pie if mandates are included in the final plan. If they get mandates without the competition from a public plan, they win (big). If they get mandates with a public plan, they might win, depending on how much the public ultimately likes the public plan. If they get no mandate but a public plan, they lose. Insurance has skin in the game, then. An example: if you just try to cut costs now, and do nothing else substantial, the first thing done will be to eliminate government payoffs to private insurers under Medicare Part D. (It does nothing for the consumer, but was simply a Bush giveaway in his Medicare plan reform.) Insurers will no longer have skin in the game, and will balk with all the force they can muster, because they will no longer feel they have the opportunity to gain anything. Meanwhile, the public will see no immediate benefits from piecemeal cost-cutting (other than, to them, the theoretical long-term national debt), and, disappointed (especially after the hue and cry of the insurance advertising) will be less likely to support further reforms. That's why it all needs to be done at once, to simultaneously juggle all the power brokers in play, offering both carrots and sticks, to produce meaningful reform.
What a silly thread. Is anyone surprised to see tea-partier types consistently misinformed, oft disengenuous, and repeatedly pwned accordingly? I appreciate the rationale for the fear involved (some folks have a propensity to be suspicious of change), but damn, it would be nice if these same people would at least attempt to be informed, or research some of the very bull**** they continually repeat as gospel.
