Thread: President Obama's Speech

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president's health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.

The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx

With a political arms race in full force, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) has raised almost $750,000 in less than 48 hours since his shout of "You lie!" to President Obamahttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/scs_wilson_rakes_in_750000_in.html


Joe is a liar eh ?
Our feckless leader, caught in another outright lie.


Quack Quack Quack

1st year Lame duck President

See, thats all anyone was looking for. Close the loophole. This will probably help smooth the way for some level of reform, if they dont strap it to a public option its likely to get republican support. Lets see if the O can talk Pelosi and the liberal funky bunch down. :P

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by SJA

No, its not that simple. There are provisions for credits in the bill based on income. That is where big fed pays for your health insurance. You arent buying it anymore if do it all on credits, I am, and anyone else that pays taxes is. Im not all over the map, Im talking about the bill at hand. When I reference another layer of dependency, I mean getting people hooked on the government tit. Im against it, but thats probably another discussion.

But if they cannot afford it any other way, how else are they going to get it? Should we deny them because they are poorer? I see these people as utilizing their government to help them get by. I don't see it as being dependent on the government. As a side question, are you against things like unemployment, too?

Theres a big difference between unemployment (temporary, 3 month limit) and these credits that from what Ive read, are indefinite. Welfare used to be indefinite, and people lived off of it. One of the highlights of Clinton's term was TANF. Without limits, people will abuse it, its an unfortunate fact of life.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by SJA

Im not against choice, Im against forcing the private companies to compete with something that doesnt play by the same rules. Thats no longer a game, its a fix. A government option would inherently play by a seperate set of rules, they dont have to worry about competition from anyone else. They cant fail, no matter what they budget, the government will keep feeding it. Business doesnt work that way, and it makes no sense to say youre promoting competition when what you are really doing is building an option that competes with nothing, while everyone competes with it.

So we shouldn't have a public option because it may be able to provide a far cheaper alternative? I'm sorry I don't give a shit if private insurance companies profits take a hit. And I think you are overestimating the effect of this public option. It's not like half the population is going to switch over, it's will likely just be a small percentage.

I think you are looking at it too simply. This isnt just about profit margins, its about the government driving the entire market. There is no clear answer on the number of people switching, but it will be significant nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by SJA

Im absolutely for people buying their own insurance. Like I said previously, I would prefer regulation of the private system instead of giving the government a part of HC. Providing some form of reduced services based on a smaller cost is fine with me as long as people are paying. Think of it like comp and collision on beater cars, the bare minimum to keep it on the road. If people are good with that, let them go cheap on HC.

What I meant by basic insurance was a base level of coverage, not just catastrophic insurance. As in they cannot sell anything worse than the base level. In auto terms, I want affordable full coverage for everyone, not just PLPD. But the problem is your life is not comparable to a car. A crap car can get away with just PLPD because it isn't worth it to fully insure it. Lives are different, and I think if we are going to mandate private coverage, that we should at least have affordable full coverage.

The problem cuts both ways, some people still dont want to pay for anything, even knowing the risk. By putting the basic tier at some catastrophic level you provide enough to get by for those people. I can see expanding on the dutch model and having a catastrophic, basic, and expanded level of service to scratch everyone's itch.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by SJA

What standards are you referring to when you say you are wary of mandating people to buy private insurance?

I meant I don't support a mandate to force people to give money to private insurers unless the same extremely strict standards in countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland are in effect.

I still dont understand the standards you are speaking about. There is some agreed basic level of service that all companies must provide at a fixed cost. There isnt any regulation beyond that. The one danger I saw in all of this was the graying out of the population. Without a birthrate that roughly equals seniors entering their retirement, any model, private or social, breaks down. Thats a problem in most developed countries I believe.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by SJA

According to census figures there are roughly 11 million people that are uninsured but either qualify for medicaid and havent enrolled or make over 75k a year and choose not to buy any health insurance.

One, that is $75k per household, not per person, so it really is impossible to know about those peoples situations, and two, this also completely ignores the people who are underinsured or don't have sufficient coverage.

I was able to get my own coverage when my household income was in the 50k range. Thats a cop-out. If you can make 75k as a household, you can afford some level of coverage. That may mean cutting back on your cable package, or skimping on eating out, but 75k for a household isnt hurting unless youre a very active mormon. :P

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by SJA

Without a mandate, we are letting people that are part of the problem not contribute even though they can.

I agree here, but like I said, I cannot support a mandate unless private insurers are severely restricted or there is an adequate public option.

I think the two are exclusive, but with the dems in charge I dont think the dutch model will get a fair shake. The conspiracist says that the public option grows government dependency, which in turn grows the liberal voter block. The realist just thinks they are just stubborn pricks that dont look beyond the party line. Im floating somewhere in the middle right now.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

9 months in and your already calling him a lame duck? I mean, it's not like he has gotten a big piece of legislation through yet. Oh, wait, he has! The stimulus. This is why I could never be conservative. It requires the suspension of all logical and reasoned thought to live in a fantasy world.

LMAO
Truly ...
The stimulus bill ROFL
A massive payback
also a total betrayal by the Congress of their sworn duty
You can not tell me you represent my interests when you don't read the laws you are passing in my name.

You do recall that our esteemed leader was trying to push this bill through last month without anyone reading it either ?



An estimated 2 million people marched on DC today .....all astro-turfers hunh ?
Dumbed-down faux news drones each and every one ?


Wake up to the fact that a lot of people do not like Obama because of what he does as a leader and while you may not agree with them, your view that they are all stupid is wearing thin.

Callous, where do you see reports of 2 million? I've seen it on several news reports today, and they're reporting thousands ...

not to call you out or anything, but I'll be marching soon, and I wanna make sure we have more

Originally Posted by Xoria

Callous, where do you see reports of 2 million? I've seen it on several news reports today, and they're reporting thousands ...

not to call you out or anything, but I'll be marching soon, and I wanna make sure we have more

Police est 1.2 million
ABC est 2 million
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12...e-912-rallies/

Danke vel

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

LMAO
Truly ...
The stimulus bill ROFL
A massive payback
also a total betrayal by the Congress of their sworn duty
You can not tell me you represent my interests when you don't read the laws you are passing in my name.

You do recall that our esteemed leader was trying to push this bill through last month without anyone reading it either ?

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't ask if you liked it, genius, I just said he got it passed. Lame duck Presidents don't get major things like that passed.

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

An estimated 2 million people marched on DC today .....all astro-turfers hunh ?
Dumbed-down faux news drones each and every one ?


Wake up to the fact that a lot of people do not like Obama because of what he does as a leader and while you may not agree with them, your view that they are all stupid is wearing thin.

ABC News: "...approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people flooded Pennsylvania Ave, according to the Washington DC Fire Department. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-p...ory?id=8557120

Who to trust? Michelle Malkin or ABC News and the Washington DC Fire Department? Tough choice...

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

Originally Posted by Xoria

Callous, where do you see reports of 2 million? I've seen it on several news reports today, and they're reporting thousands ...

not to call you out or anything, but I'll be marching soon, and I wanna make sure we have more

Police est 1.2 million
ABC est 2 million
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12...e-912-rallies/

Information coming only from an ultra biased conservative is hardly valid data...