View Full Version : Obama on Fox
Obama is floundering on Bret Baier's show right now, talking in circles, dodging the issues and clearly doesn't care about the process in addition to not knowing what's actually in the bill.
This is embarrassing!
He can tap dance with the best of them. Bret Baier gave him some tough questions and all I saw was a bunch of dancing around.
I didn't know what it would take for me to have any LESS respect for Obama as a man. And I hoped I wouldn't find out what it would take for me to have less respect for the office itself.
I now know the answer to both of those questions. :(
Great job Brett Baier and FOX.
Belmont31R
03-17-10, 19:16
Didn't answer the questions, and just recited his talking points.
Bret: Is the sky blue?
Obama: What my health care plan is going to do is allow people to buy the same plans as members of Congress.
Basically I heard he doesn't care how they get it passed as long as they get it passed. To hell with process and rules.
MSNBC is crying that Bret kept interupting Obama. I assume they'd just let him give his infomercial without question?
Damn, I missed it. There should be clips of it popping up, though.
Every time he speaks off teleprompter or in a non-canned interview, the same thing happens. This should be no surprise.
Obama believes in social and economic justice, always has and always will. And those beliefs are generally at odds with the founding principles of this country. If he speaks the truth he will lose even more points at the poll, and that goes against the narcissist in him.
VooDoo6Actual
03-17-10, 20:14
Saw it.
Still in shock we elected him.
imo, BIG mistake.
A transparently self-serving non-answer, IMO. I heard the sound earlier today. I am amazed at the lack of respect the man- and his entire administration- has for our intelligence.
I don't know about you guys, but I've been cranking out calls and emails like a madman recently. It's time to stand-to on this issue.
Watching Obama and Pelosi holding hands and whispering to each other today was like watching Kim Jong "Ill" entangle himself with Ahmadinejad. They are just really that disgusting.
Belmont31R
03-17-10, 20:16
Damn, I missed it. There should be clips of it popping up, though.
Every time he speaks off teleprompter or in a non-canned interview, the same thing happens. This should be no surprise.
Obama believes in social and economic justice, always has and always will. And those beliefs are generally at odds with the founding principles of this country. If he speaks the truth he will lose even more points at the poll, and that goes against the narcissist in him.
Obama wants to be remembered along the likes of FDR, Lincoln, etc. When have communists ever cared about the means to the end. No matte what Reid and Pelosi plops on his desk he is going to sign. Bribes, broken knees, cash, whatever. He doesn't care. To him the more controversy the better because it will be a bigger mark in history with his name associated with it. We never remember the speaker of the house or the senate leader. We remember the president. He wants his name next to "health care".
GermanSynergy
03-17-10, 20:29
Saw it. I thought it was going to be some Bill O'Reilly style fluff piece. Impressed that this guy asked the tough questions.
Anyone with a mild familiarization with FACS truly enjoyed watching this. :rolleyes:
He didn't answer a single damn question. What a piece of shit.
Anyone with a mild familiarization with FACS truly enjoyed watching this. :rolleyes:
Is that the Facial Action Coding System.
I think you'd be right on that for sure. As I watch him l see disdain for the interviewer by his dead-eye stare and how he keeps nodding as the Q's are coming at him show an attempt to throw off the questioner.
He is the master of CRITICAL THEORY (look it up, all, if need be) and how to reverse it on those who aren't acomplished practitioners.
The stonewalling and refusal to engage are CT 101. He has all the traits necessary to actually be the prophesized Antichrist. Not really my area or cup o' tea but it would fit.
Can anyone say ONE TERM PRES?
Bulldog1967
03-17-10, 21:14
http://politiclolz.com/files/2009/09/20090909-You-Lie.jpg
In line with this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWmrmTeMsIk
If any of you watched the new South Park tonight I suspect many of your questions will indeed be answered.
It's all the Alien Wizard. And, hail to the chief, Obama figured it all out.
Saw it. I thought it was going to be some Bill O'Reilly style fluff piece. Impressed that this guy asked the tough questions.
Bret's no fluffer. I like Bret, he's done a few pieces that are a bit windy, but when it comes down to tough(er) questions, he'll at least ask them, but often will skip to another question for the sake of time rather than push the issue if there's lots of dodging. Pretty good from my experience watching him.
Saw it.
Still in shock we elected him.
imo, BIG mistake.
This is my problem with democracy, we let any and every idiot make decisions that they are not qualified to make.
Anyone notice how he always refers to the work HE has done in the singular. "I" have worked so hard. "I" have done this or that. "I" have taken care of this issue.... What an arrogant prick.
Good job, America. Good. ****ing. Job.
Good job, America. Good. ****ing. Job.[/QUOTE]
+1 with all my heart
I don't think he answered one question...
Here is the interview for anyone who hasn't seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DPS72#p/a/u/0/Wdz6fy4sfAw
Drink a bottle of Pepto first, cause it's going to make your stomach turn.
Nathan_Bell
03-18-10, 06:30
Wow, I think that was more disgusting than Bubba's "Is" tap dancing.
I don't think he answered one question...
He never did when he was running for office..Should we expect any different now that he got elected?? Like Bill Clinton, I don't think he's capable of telling the truth.. That's Ok, November's coming...
ForTehNguyen
03-18-10, 08:10
he defended the Louisiana Purchase because it also helps people harmed by the "earthquake in Hawaii" When did that ever happen? :rolleyes:
Nathan_Bell
03-18-10, 08:19
he defended the Louisiana Purchase because it also helps people harmed by the "earthquake in Hawaii" When did that ever happen? :rolleyes:
Hawaii? Haiti? It's one of those 57 states.
lethal dose
03-18-10, 08:47
Hawaii? Haiti? It's one of those 57 states.
Haha... you'd think, huh?
The voting public just pisses me off...the moderates who voted on emotion deserve everything they see and should be bitch slapped before walking into the booth next go round.
Belmont31R
03-18-10, 10:01
The voting public just pisses me off...the moderates who voted on emotion deserve everything they see and should be bitch slapped before walking into the booth next go round.
I don't like "moderates" or "independents" because it means they can't put stock in anything or make a decision. Either one platform is for you or isn't.
If you look at this health care BS what, 80%+ of democrats voted for it. Now moderates are pissed the man they elected is pushing a socialist agenda? They voted for him, and only an idiot would vote for him thinking he was centrist. The writing was on the wall well before election time. With members of Congress they are all voting the way of the leadership, and a handful are not. You can count them on your digits. If you elect a democrat you should expect them to push the nanny state welfare crap. Democrats have been giving us big government programs and expenditures since the 30's when FDR signed Social Security into law. Its no surprise these big nanny state programs that cost us hundreds of billions a year are what democrats do. Then get pissed when you elect a democrat, and they push for another one? The last time we had a democrat Congress, and executive they did the same thing!
People who have given up on their party? If you're a democrat who thinks democrats have gone too far left the next step to the right is republicans. That line is so meshed together, that aside from a few issues, there is little difference. If you think they are too centrist you should belong to the socialist or communist parties. If you're a republican who thinks republicans have gone too far left you become a libertarian, conservative, constitutionalist, etc. Floating out there "in the middle" just means you don't understand politics enough to have a conviction to anything.
This is my problem with democracy, we let any and every idiot make decisions that they are not qualified to make.
In some European countries, decisions are made by groups of (supposedly) well-qualified technocrats. We would call them "bureaucrats." If we had that here we would have had "universal" health care a long time ago, along with many other horrible ideas.
The problem isn't democratic elections, it's that the federal government is so large, arrogant and entrenched that it simply ignores the constraints of the Constitution and the boundaries of its proper role. I agree that it is encouraged to do so by the idiotic masses who don't have any understanding or appreciation for the concept of a constitutional republic and limited central government, but ultimately it is the failure of the government itself to follow its own rules.
CBO report just came out on this and I cannot wrap my head around how an entitlement program will lower the deficit...
Belmont31R
03-18-10, 10:25
CBO report just came out on this and I cannot wrap my head around how an entitlement program will lower the deficit...
Because they are cutting other programs, and raising taxes by 500 billion.
We could have zero debt but people would be paying 80% taxes. The issue is lots of Americans want the entitlements but don't want the high taxes that go along with them. In europe they pay for them with high income taxes, 20% VAT tax, and 8-10 dollars for a gallon of gas. Here we let China pay for them, and then incure a 14 trillion dollar debt because the politicians don't want to put reality into our taxes because then the people might get an idea of just how pricey these programs really are.
ForTehNguyen
03-18-10, 12:49
the thing is CBO reports should be taken with a grain of salt. Their job is to analyze what is given to them to provide an estimate. So if the data and assumptions given to them to analyze is full of crap then there will be an inaccurate estimation like always. They are doing the best they can with what is given to them.
also according to CBOs document:
*'This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal'...
My point being the report does not reflect reality...nor actually reduce the deficit.
This whole health care situation spooks me.
Again, The voting public who out of emotion fell for bo's circus is to blame for all this. Idiots.
LegalAlien
03-18-10, 13:31
Slightly OT, but still in line with the Healthcare discussion, I read the article below, by Karl Denninger.
It is an eye-opener and serious warning to Pelosi and her gang of Constitution rapers.
I think Denniger is sensing the pulse of discontent in the nation and this move, of forcing through the Healthcare Bill, is crossing over the last line in the sand for many a citizen.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2087-A-Very-Serious-Warning-To-Nancy-Pelosi.html
This bordering on Revolution talk . . . . .
Slightly OT, but still in line with the Healthcare discussion, I read the article below, by Karl Denninger.
It is an eye-opener and serious warning to Pelosi and her gang of Constitution rapers.
I think Denniger is sensing the pulse of discontent in the nation and this move, of forcing through the Healthcare Bill, is crossing over the last line in the sand for many a citizen.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2087-A-Very-Serious-Warning-To-Nancy-Pelosi.html
This bordering on Revolution talk . . . . .
Great article. What it says about Pelosi and what this thread is saying about Obama have in common is their arrogant disregard, corruption and wanton ineptness to govern within the confines of our representative democratic republic.
All of our political leaders are pushing at that "bright line" of rebellion or civil war. we will either cave as a people and be doomed to generations of servitude, or there will be violent conflict to redress the wrongs unless our politicians back away from this determined theft from, and disregard for, American citizens.
CarlosDJackal
03-18-10, 14:18
Notice that he also stated that he will probably find out what's in the bill once it passes. :rolleyes:
LegalAlien
03-18-10, 14:27
Great article. What it says about Pelosi and what this thread is saying about Obama have in common is their arrogant disregard, corruption and wanton ineptness to govern within the confines of our representative democratic republic.
All of our political leaders are pushing at that "bright line" of rebellion or civil war. we will either cave as a people and be doomed to generations of servitude, or there will be violent conflict to redress the wrongs unless our politicians back away from this determined theft from, and disregard for, American citizens.
The next couple of weeks are going to be telling.
If you read comments on Sipsey Street Irregulars,
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/denninger-gets-it-pelosi-wont.html, there are some REAL!!!!! itchy trigger fingers out there.
In some European countries, decisions are made by groups of (supposedly) well-qualified technocrats. We would call them "bureaucrats." If we had that here we would have had "universal" health care a long time ago, along with many other horrible ideas.
The problem isn't democratic elections, it's that the federal government is so large, arrogant and entrenched that it simply ignores the constraints of the Constitution and the boundaries of its proper role. I agree that it is encouraged to do so by the idiotic masses who don't have any understanding or appreciation for the concept of a constitutional republic and limited central government, but ultimately it is the failure of the government itself to follow its own rules.
Do you really think the government under the Bush administration didn't ignore the constitution? I mean come on, Obama is trying to look out for the average american by providing people with affordable health care. Sure the government will have some control over health care but maybe we need government to look over the shoulder of the insurance companies to keep them in check. I remember back in the 90's when almost every business, small or big, was able to afford health care plans for each and every employee and I think its time to try and get back to that.
Because they are cutting other programs, and raising taxes by 500 billion.
We could have zero debt but people would be paying 80% taxes. The issue is lots of Americans want the entitlements but don't want the high taxes that go along with them. In europe they pay for them with high income taxes, 20% VAT tax, and 8-10 dollars for a gallon of gas. Here we let China pay for them, and then incure a 14 trillion dollar debt because the politicians don't want to put reality into our taxes because then the people might get an idea of just how pricey these programs really are.
This is correct, and the Bush administration generated most of this debt with decreased taxes, and increased spending; one of the reason our economy is in such a shithole. Obama adopted this debt when he came into office and he is trying to get rid of the debt so that America doesn't need to rely on other countries for money, which in turn would strengthen the US dollar.
What I think most people fail to realize is that if you want more things you have to pay for them, but under the Bush admin the american people did not have to pay because Bush lowered taxes and borrowed from countries like china. It is time we start to pay for what the previous administration has done, and the deficit may and probably will get worse in the beginning but over the long run the deficit will decrease.
Great article. What it says about Pelosi and what this thread is saying about Obama have in common is their arrogant disregard, corruption and wanton ineptness to govern within the confines of our representative democratic republic.
All of our political leaders are pushing at that "bright line" of rebellion or civil war. we will either cave as a people and be doomed to generations of servitude, or there will be violent conflict to redress the wrongs unless our politicians back away from this determined theft from, and disregard for, American citizens.
How are the current politicians stealing from us? By raising taxes to decrease such and enormous debt? By trying to provide us all with affordable health care? By trying to reduce the enormous debt that the previous administration built up? How?
Bush had more disregard for American citizens by invading the privacy of Americans and increasing spending while decreasing taxes so that our children and our children's children are paying off the debt accumulated by the increased spending.
Obama may not be the be all end all of our nations problems, but he sure is a HELL of a lot better than Bush, Thank god he is gone.
diving dave
03-18-10, 15:31
This doesnt have a dam thing to do with health care, its about big government exerting more and more control over the people. I'm so sick of these idiots claiming "the system is broken". The US has the finest health care in the world. Is it perfect? No. But thinking that big gov. is the answer is to ignore history. This all about Obama.
ForTehNguyen
03-18-10, 15:41
tell us one industry that govt intervention resulted in cheaper costs. Govt pays 46% of the healthcare dollars now so if they do 100% its going to be cheaper? Medicare is crumbling, the reimbursements are getting so low that more and more doctors are just going to stop taking it because they are taking a large loss on every single Medicare patient due to govt lowballing. We cant pay for the crap we have now so the solution is to start a totally new entitlement
Just look at Massachusetts epic fail of a healthcare system, basically a similar model for Obamacare. Their state has to get federal bailouts because the healthcare system is running huge deficits, 6% are still uninsured. 64% of the insured are heavily subsidized or dont even pay at all into the system. There is evidence of people gaming teh system buying insurance when they get sick, then dropping it a few months after they get well. MA insurance premiums rise double the rate of the national average for healthcare insurance. Yea saving money all right :rolleyes: Now their governor is threatening price controls which will create shortages. Not only that, just because you have insurance doesnt mean you have access. The demand for medical services dramatically rose after this thing went into law, and guess what the amount of physicians didnt change. Now there is a huge waiting line just to see a doctor, many doctors flat out refused to take on more patients. Sounds like the Canadian and British systems. Gee the same exact results.
If that isnt the dead giveaway of how it will turn out, then I dunno what is. Scott Brown's senate win was primary run on I will vote against healthcare....winning in the state that has govt healthcare. That goes to show how Massachusetts voters feel about govt healthcare. Christ the writing is all over the wall how people feel about govt healthcare and how it will end up, and people think it will
somehow work differently here.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/19/why-coakley-really-lost-massachusetts-health-care-reform/
LegalAlien
03-18-10, 15:46
. . . . . .
. . . .. Obama adopted this debt when he came into office and he is trying to get rid of the debt so that America doesn't need to rely on other countries for money, which in turn would strengthen the US dollar.
. . . .
How are the current politicians stealing from us? By raising taxes to decrease such and enormous debt? By trying to provide us all with affordable health care? By trying to reduce the enormous debt that the previous administration built up? How?
. . . . .
Obama will be the l end of our nation, . . . Thank god he will be gone after one term . . . if some crazy azzzz does not whack him before then.<there - fixed it for ya>
Holy shittttttt . . . what planet did you just arrive from????
You want to tell me that turning $Billions deficit, into $Trillions deficit is reducing an enormous debt????
Somehow that does not compute per my '60's highschool math book.
ForTehNguyen
03-18-10, 15:47
trying to reduce the debt by spending more money? That's some great freaking logic. Bush started a fire, Obama threw napalm on it.
I don't like "moderates" or "independents" because it means they can't put stock in anything or make a decision. Either one platform is for you or isn't.
I respectfully disagree. I don't see why it has to be black/white. Plenty of people like myself don't agree 100% with one party or the other nor should we. It has nothing to do with making a decision and everything to do with our beliefs and values and the politians should refect that instead of us trying to align ourselves with their beliefs and the stances they take on the issues.
In my opinion the two party system is broken and the climate is ripe for a strong, third, independant party that doesn't have to say it's our way or the highway.
But you don't like me so disregard everything I just said.
Do you really think the government under the Bush administration didn't ignore the constitution? I mean come on, Obama is trying to look out for the average american by providing people with affordable health care. Sure the government will have some control over health care but maybe we need government to look over the shoulder of the insurance companies to keep them in check. I remember back in the 90's when almost every business, small or big, was able to afford health care plans for each and every employee and I think its time to try and get back to that.
This is correct, and the Bush administration generated most of this debt with decreased taxes, and increased spending; one of the reason our economy is in such a shithole. Obama adopted this debt when he came into office and he is trying to get rid of the debt so that America doesn't need to rely on other countries for money, which in turn would strengthen the US dollar.
What I think most people fail to realize is that if you want more things you have to pay for them, but under the Bush admin the american people did not have to pay because Bush lowered taxes and borrowed from countries like china. It is time we start to pay for what the previous administration has done, and the deficit may and probably will get worse in the beginning but over the long run the deficit will decrease.
How are the current politicians stealing from us? By raising taxes to decrease such and enormous debt? By trying to provide us all with affordable health care? By trying to reduce the enormous debt that the previous administration built up? How?
Bush had more disregard for American citizens by invading the privacy of Americans and increasing spending while decreasing taxes so that our children and our children's children are paying off the debt accumulated by the increased spending.
Obama may not be the be all end all of our nations problems, but he sure is a HELL of a lot better than Bush, Thank god he is gone.
I didn't know Keith Olbermann had an account here? :confused:
Holy shittttttt . . . what planet did you just arrive from????
You want to tell me that turning $Billions deficit, into $Trillions deficit is reducing an enormous debt????
Somehow that does not compute per my '60's highschool math book.
The US was already Trillions of dollars in debt before Obama came into office, get off your high horse. And yes, things usually get worse before they get better, that is just how it works. When Obama came into office, he had to spend money to help stimulate the economy, but what did it do? Created jobs and helped citizens feel a little better about spending money to help the economy.
trying to reduce the debt by spending more money? That's some great freaking logic. Bush started a fire, Obama threw napalm on it.
Bush started a forest fire (obtaining an ENORMOUS DEBT), Obama is trying to put it out (reduce the debt). While Obama is putting the fire out, the fire will indeed grow this will inevitably happen (spending more money), but once the fire is contained (after the money is spent, new bills are passed, and taxes are raised) the fire will slowly be put out over a long period of time.
Money needs to be spent in order to fix what is already wrong with this country. Once the money is spent we will start to see the savings and reduction of debt.
FlyAndFight
03-18-10, 17:01
(long winded anti-Bush diatribe found here.)
The following example is not mine but I came across it and found it brilliantly simple and applicable. Non-ideologue but fiscal in nature.
demarne needs to be taken to a car dealership. (GM would do great in this case) He/She should be allowed to pick out a car that he/she wants, put in every option that he/she can think of and then sit down at the finance manager's desk and be approved with very reasonable payments. The term of the loan would be 5 years. After signing on the dotted line demarne would ask for the keys and at that time he/she would be told....
"Oh, you don't get to use the car for 4 years, come back then."
"Then I won't pay for it!" responds demarne.
"Oh, yes you will. You signed on the dotted line. You'll pay for the car for the 1st 4 years that you won't be using the car. Don't worry, we'll keep it safe for you. You can use it in years 4 and there after. See you in 4 years... next.
Then let demarne come back and tell us of the benefits of this bill.....
ForTehNguyen
03-18-10, 17:02
Bush started a forest fire (obtaining an ENORMOUS DEBT), Obama is trying to put it out (reduce the debt). While Obama is putting the fire out, the fire will indeed grow this will inevitably happen (spending more money), but once the fire is contained (after the money is spent, new bills are passed, and taxes are raised) the fire will slowly be put out over a long period of time.
Money needs to be spent in order to fix what is already wrong with this country. Once the money is spent we will start to see the savings and reduction of debt.
overspending is what got is in this problem and what needs to stop. Going into debt and raising taxes is sure going to work well for the economy. Spending money to get out of debt, you have got to be kidding me. I dare you to try this with your personal finances, by maxing out your credit cards, when you are in a financial jam. When you are in a hole, what should you do. Stop freaking digging would be a start.
I didn't know Keith Olbermann had an account here? :confused:
Everyone loves Keith.
Uh, don't they? :o
Money needs to be spent in order to fix what is already wrong with this country. Once the money is spent we will start to see the savings and reduction of debt.
Sure, spending money can help... if it's money that has value to it. Every dollar they print and spend DEVALUES the dollar even more. This is not a solution, it's the genesis for complete failure of our monetary system. Great idea.
I didn't think this would devolve into a Bush vs. Obama thread. No one mentioned Bush until your first post demarne.
I for one don't disagree with you that the Bush Administration enlarged the federal government dramatically, spent gross amounts of money, and passed questionable bills. However, if you are smart enough to know that we have to look past the current administration to see where our problems began, you should be smart enough to go back further than to just the Bush reign.
Why don't we go back to the biggest proponents and originators of the social, welfare system that you seem to be in favor of? The bottom line is this, repeatedly doing all the work for someone is not helping them. Socialized anything, takes all accountability, and responsibility for one's actions, and that is not helping them.
Americans have always been generous and charitable as a society, but when you are forced into giving, it no longer meets the definition of charity and the people will be against it.
Hell, we should be pissed at the founding generation too for not paying off the debt we incurred by financing the revolution. It's too late to go back, but spending more is not the answer. Read Zhurdan's post and do what he says with your personal finances and see what happens. Then again, seeing how you seem to be a favor of socialized welfare programs, maybe you just know that I'll be paying for your mistakes, so you may just will.
I didn't think this would devolve into a Bush vs. Obama thread. No one mentioned Bush until your first post demarne.
It's ALWAYS bush's fault...that is the the way of the current admin & his supporters follow suit on this angle as a way to justify the lefty direction. They had no choice but to spend all this $$$ and go for national healthcare. It certainly will not fly here and I doubt he will be making any tracks with this crowd.
W's domestic fiscal policies were WAY to left for me & he failed horribly in this area...good grief, the current admin is taking his little spending campfire and turning it into a forestfire with high winds. To say you HAVE to spend your way out of Bush's mistakes is so friggin ignorant it's not worth engauging fools with this thought process.
You will get nowhere with keith o. thinking.
Money needs to be spent in order to fix what is already wrong with this country. Once the money is spent we will start to see the savings and reduction of debt.
Sounds utterly fantastic. Please enlighten us as to your plan.
I didn't know Keith Olbermann had an account here? :confused:
Ha thats funny. Didn't think democrats owned guns eh?
overspending is what got is in this problem and what needs to stop. Going into debt and raising taxes is sure going to work well for the economy. Spending money to get out of debt, you have got to be kidding me. I dare you to try this with your personal finances, by maxing out your credit cards, when you are in a financial jam. When you are in a hole, what should you do. Stop freaking digging would be a start.
You are correct, overspending is what got us into this predicament. However, what Obama is proposing is not overspending, it is spending money to FIX several problems in the health care system. According to the CBO report, this "fix" is predicted to save $1.1 trillion the first ten years and $1.3 trillion the next ten. Health Care is one of the most inefficient business systems in this country and it NEEDS to be fixed.
Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in the federal deficit over the same period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period.
A good example to respond to your scenario would be this: I own a big V8 truck that gets 5mpg. I am going into serious debt spending money to put gas in this truck and drive around town and get to work. I trade in my truck and get a hybrid that gets 50mpg. Initially this is costing me money, but over a period of a year or two, the car has paid for itself and i am saving money. This is exactly what the Health Care reform is predicted to do.
Sure, spending money can help... if it's money that has value to it. Every dollar they print and spend DEVALUES the dollar even more. This is not a solution, it's the genesis for complete failure of our monetary system. Great idea.
Well you can thank Bush for the terrible value of the US dollar today. When clinton left office the US had a surplus of $2.3 billion. When Bush left office the national debt was $10.6 trillion dollars. That is what has killed the US dollar. Obama is spending a lot of money, i agree with that but this is money that is needed to fix poor legislation adopted by the Obama administration.
It's ALWAYS bush's fault...that is the the way of the current admin & his supporters follow suit on this angle as a way to justify the lefty direction. They had no choice but to spend all this $$$ and go for national healthcare. It certainly will not fly here and I doubt he will be making any tracks with this crowd.
W's domestic fiscal policies were WAY to left for me & he failed horribly in this area...good grief, the current admin is taking his little spending campfire and turning it into a forestfire with high winds. To say you HAVE to spend your way out of Bush's mistakes is so friggin ignorant it's not worth engauging fools with this thought process.
You will get nowhere with keith o. thinking.
Ding Ding Ding! You are correct, Bush is the one that racked up such a large deficit.
If spending money isn't the answer to fix Bush's mistakes, what would you suggest is the answer?
Damn Demarne, you sound like you've memorized Nancy Pelosi's diary! I don't really care if you think Bush is the only one that gets the blame here but if you can't see how effe'd up Obama, his administration and the Democrat controlled Congress is you have zero credibility here. You might as well go hang out on the Huffington Post. I do get a kick out of you guys that bitch and moan about how the previous administration ran up the deficit but think it's perfectly fine for Obama do it. Nice double standard.
Anyone that thinks we can spend our way out of this (and not have inflation kick our ass on the way out) failed ECO101.
Obama is spending a lot of money, i agree with that but this is money that is needed to fix poor legislation adopted by the Obama administration.
You finally got one right...sort of.
Seems like we have another amusing addition here.
RogerinTPA
03-18-10, 21:49
I respectfully disagree. I don't see why it has to be black/white. Plenty of people like myself don't agree 100% with one party or the other nor should we. It has nothing to do with making a decision and everything to do with our beliefs and values and the politians should refect that instead of us trying to align ourselves with their beliefs and the stances they take on the issues.
In my opinion the two party system is broken and the climate is ripe for a strong, third, independant party that doesn't have to say it's our way or the highway.
But you don't like me so disregard everything I just said.
I totally agree with your assessment. Both parties should take a powder and term limits should be in there to end the career politicians in ALL parties. Having a 2 term limit across the board, would be a public service.
When Obama came into office, he had to spend money to help stimulate the economy, but what did it do? Created jobs...
Wait... what?!?!
RogerinTPA
03-18-10, 22:18
Saw it, and it sucked. POTUS sounded like he was gonna steal Bret's wallet. Made me join the local 9/12 Project.
CarlosDJackal
03-19-10, 00:23
Do you really think the government under the Bush administration ...and the Bush administration ...but under the Bush admin the ...Bush had more disregard ...blah-blah-blah...
Dude, get a life. Bush has been gone for over a year now!!
If you're still having nightmares about him you should leave the basement, go up to your mommy and daddy's room and see if they will let you crawl into bed with them. :rolleyes:
Healthcare costs would be a hell of a lot lower for us if we weren't forced to pay for the (minimum of) 12 Million people that are illegally in the country who run to the ER every time little <enter ethnic name here> gets a sniffle... That's what's screwing the healthcare industry.
BTW - Keynesian economic theory = FAIL! This has been proven repeatedly throughout history. To think that Obama's team will somehow make it work is the epitome of insanity.
LegalAlien
03-19-10, 08:30
Demarne
Obama is spending a lot of money, i agree with that but this is money that is needed to fix poor legislation adopted by the Obama administration.
Priceless dude, Priceless
I knew you would see the light.
Now even the Dems are blaming Obama for adopting poor legislation.
ForTehNguyen
03-19-10, 09:08
You are correct, overspending is what got us into this predicament. However, what Obama is proposing is not overspending, it is spending money to FIX several problems in the health care system. According to the CBO report, this "fix" is predicted to save $1.1 trillion the first ten years and $1.3 trillion the next ten. Health Care is one of the most inefficient business systems in this country and it NEEDS to be fixed.
the CBO isnt the epitome of correct estimations either, they do the best they can with the information and assumptions they are given Even if they information and assumptions are completely out of touch with reality. Its no different than a climate change modelling program its only as good as the information you put into it.
If they wanted to fix healthcare they would:
1) give employees the same tax credit already given to employers for offering insurance. This is the very reason why you are pigeonholed into a employer provided healthcare model and do not have portable insurance.
2) interstate competition b/t insurance companies. This would be true usage of the interstate commerce clause, to promote and make regular interstate commerce.
3) tort reform - but too bad trial lawyers were one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic party for the past 20 years
but throwing more govt money will do nothing to lower costs, how the heck does insuring another 30-40M and starting a new entitlement suppose to lower costs. Nothing the govt has thrown money at ever lowered in costs, govt only makes those prices rise. Look at Massachusetts the model for Obamacare it failed there, it will fail nationally. I dunno how people can think otherwise.
if you think Obamacare will work, then explain what MA is going through:
Just look at Massachusetts epic fail of a healthcare system, basically a similar model for Obamacare. Their state has to get federal bailouts because the healthcare system is running huge deficits, 6% are still uninsured. 64% of the insured are heavily subsidized or dont even pay at all into the system. There is evidence of people gaming teh system buying insurance when they get sick, then dropping it a few months after they get well. MA insurance premiums rise double the rate of the national average for healthcare insurance. Yea saving money all right Now their governor is threatening price controls which will create shortages. Not only that, just because you have insurance doesnt mean you have access. The demand for medical services dramatically rose after this thing went into law, and guess what the amount of physicians didnt change. Now there is a huge waiting line just to see a doctor, many doctors flat out refused to take on more patients. Sounds like the Canadian and British systems. Gee the same exact results.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf
When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true:
•Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state’s generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
•Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.
• New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
•Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a “global budget” on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.
•A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician. With the “Massachusetts model” frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model.
I mean christ, the people of MA elected Scott Brown on the primary platform that he will vote against Obamacare....in the state that practically has Obamacare already. How much bigger of a red flag do people need to realize how bad they do not want Obamacare. The writing is all over the wall how people feel about this but Congress is in complete denial and delusion.
Ha thats funny. Didn't think democrats owned guns eh?
...and you support / vote for the very folks who want to take this right away. You are at least consistant in your thinking.
Blame Bush for spending too much coin and ruining the deficit & then praise bo for doing the same but 10 fold?? Shouldn't you be upset that W didn't spend like bo?? Strange thought process.
Honestly, voters like you don't bother me as I understand which candidate you will vote for. What irks me are the folks who are against all of bo's policies but still cast their vote his way because they get sucked up in his oratorical skills and can't see past a history of way left voting from a lifelong politician who never had a private sector job.
The_War_Wagon
03-19-10, 09:43
You could interview a pet rock and get more coherent answers. :rolleyes:
Honestly, voters like you don't bother me as I understand which candidate you will vote for. What irks me are the folks who are against all of bo's policies but still cast their vote his way because they get sucked up in his oratorical skills and can't see past a history of way left voting from a lifelong politician who never had a private sector job.
Ohhh come on now Artos... voting "Present" damn near his whole career isn't far left. :D;)
Wait... what?!?!
I wouldn't even try to understand. He's just parroting what he's heard on MSNBC and/or the Huffington Post and is either brainwashed or trolling.
Nobody, including moderate democrats thinks that what we're doing is a good idea and the evidence is right there in Congress. If Pelosi is having a hard time bullying and bribing her own party that speaks volumes.
He's also a hypocrite because Bush was the first to spend $700 billion to bail big banks out but when he did it he was running up the deficit. When Obama does it he's creating jobs. :o
Which by the way you won't find a single neutral resource that says the stimulus has created jobs but never mind facts cuz we're running on pure emotion here!
The sooner that guys like this realize that Obama and his administration is same-ole-same-ole the better off we'll be. This is longer about Bush vs Obama, Reps vs Dems, this is about a bloated, out of touch, arrogant, power hungry government that does what it wants without any regard for us. Guys like demarne have to blame someone and if that makes them feel better then more power to him but it doesn’t solve the problem and it distracts from seeing who else is to blame.
I still say we should vote every one of those clowns out and replace them all. I know if they can do a better job I am certain that they couldn’t do any worse.
Well you can thank Bush for the terrible value of the US dollar today. When clinton left office the US had a surplus of $2.3 billion. When Bush left office the national debt was $10.6 trillion dollars. That is what has killed the US dollar. Obama is spending a lot of money, i agree with that but this is money that is needed to fix poor legislation adopted by the Obama administration.
Really? The reason Clinton racked up a surplus was because he gutted the military. Then guess what? A little event happened on 9/11/2001. Bush had to spend money to re-build the military that Clinton hacked up. Something the Dems always seem to forget. Now Obama is essentially doing the same by cutting the Defense budget again.
As far as Bush leaving office and leaving a "10.6 trillion deficit" to Obama, try again.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.
And this:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
Releasing his budget this Monday, President Barack Obama told the American people:
We won’t be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country still need help. … Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.
But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:
Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;
The chart above compares the President’s budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office’s budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama’s 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.
Now the President is apparently arguing that his trillions of dollars in additional deficit spending are needed to “invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.”
This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday.
President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically “free” a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the “free” category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we’ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to “mostly free.” As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama’s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.
Originally Posted by demarne
When Obama came into office, he had to spend money to help stimulate the economy, but what did it do? Created jobs...
Yeah, maybe government jobs. Not private sector jobs, which are taking the biggest hit. Obama's policies are killing private small businesses.
And if this health care plan is so great, why are the Dems pulling every underhanded trick they can to get it passed? If its so great, why wasn't it passed last year? And don't say its the Republican's fault. The Dems have had the majority in Congress since 2006.
Was there ever a surplus? I was always under the impression that there was a *projected* surplus?
Priceless dude, Priceless
I knew you would see the light.
Now even the Dems are blaming Obama for adopting poor legislation.
I think you misread what i was saying or there is some internet sarcasm im not picking up. I was saying that Obama needs to spend money to fix the inefficient policies he adopted from the Bush admin.
...and you support / vote for the very folks who want to take this right away. You are at least consistant in your thinking.
Blame Bush for spending too much coin and ruining the deficit & then praise bo for doing the same but 10 fold?? Shouldn't you be upset that W didn't spend like bo?? Strange thought process.
To be honest I wasn't that much into guns when I voted for Obama, but regardless of that I don't think he would ever have enough support to ban guns all together, not to mention there are more important things than gun control with the current condition of the economy. I don't think banning guns is the answer, I just think there need to be stricter laws to purchase a gun, regardless if it is a long gun or handgun.
Bush spent money recklessly. Obama is spending money to make current systems in the country more efficient, thus saving the country money over a period of time.
I wouldn't even try to understand. He's just parroting what he's heard on MSNBC and/or the Huffington Post and is either brainwashed or trolling.
Nobody, including moderate democrats thinks that what we're doing is a good idea and the evidence is right there in Congress. If Pelosi is having a hard time bullying and bribing her own party that speaks volumes.
The sooner that guys like this realize that Obama and his administration is same-ole-same-ole the better off we'll be. This is longer about Bush vs Obama, Reps vs Dems, this is about a bloated, out of touch, arrogant, power hungry government that does what it wants without any regard for us. Guys like demarne have to blame someone and if that makes them feel better then more power to him but it doesn’t solve the problem and it distracts from seeing who else is to blame.
I still say we should vote every one of those clowns out and replace them all. I know if they can do a better job I am certain that they couldn’t do any worse.
So you get all your info from neutral sources? I doubt it, I bet you watch FOX and all the brainwashing they do. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't say EVERYONE thinks what Obama is doing is a bad idea, I mean the AMA and AARP both endorse the health care reform, which are the largest doctor and retiree groups. Also, most of those "moderate" democrats are now saying they will vote yes on the health care reform.
Basically look at the health care reform as this: You own a house and all the appliances and electronics are old and inefficient. You want to replace all these things to save money in the long term, so you decide it will be worth it to purchase more efficient appliances that will save you on energy, water and gas bills. Up front it will cost money, then in a few years you will break even and start to save money. This is what the health care reform is going to do.
And you say we should vote everyone out? That is exactly what happened 3 years ago when the republicans lost majority and again what happened last year when Obama won the election.
John_Wayne777
03-19-10, 14:50
I don't think banning guns is the answer, I just think there need to be stricter laws to purchase a gun, regardless if it is a long gun or handgun.
I think you're on the wrong website.
I think you misread what i was saying or there is some internet sarcasm im not picking up. I was saying that Obama needs to spend money to fix the inefficient policies he adopted from the Bush admin.
Of course you were. Typical leftist, no accountability for overt mistakes and everyone who disagrees is too stupid to understand their brilliance.
Plus you waste the time of others who are willing to engage in an intellectual, fact based discussion.
Sad to see, but an obvious peril of a semi-public forum.
LOL, another one?!
This website must be on some ACORN/White House list.
I think you're on the wrong website.
You beat me to it.
demarne-
I personally know 2 doctors that I shoot with that said if this "abortion" of a bill passes, they are going to turn off their pagers and work 9 to 5. And they tell me a lot of they're colleauges feel the same way.
That being said, what's Obama going to do when other docs decide to do the same thing or quit all together? Station troops at hospitals and force doctors to treat people? Its easy to force this bill on people when Congress won't be participating in it themselves.
Obama himself even made this all about him by saying "if this doesn't pass, it could be the end of my Presidency". He DOES NOT care about the American people.
CarlosDJackal
03-19-10, 16:11
demarne-
I personally know 2 doctors that I shoot with that said if this "abortion" of a bill passes, they are going to turn off their pagers and work 9 to 5. And they tell me a lot of they're colleauges feel the same way.
That being said, what's Obama going to do when other docs decide to do the same thing or quit all together? Station troops at hospitals and force doctors to treat people? Its easy to force this bill on people when Congress won't be participating in it themselves.
Obama himself even made this all about him by saying "if this doesn't pass, it could be the end of my Presidency". He DOES NOT care about the American people.
I heard somewhere that there was a poll of doctors that resulted in half stating that they would leave their profession. Imagine how good HC would be in this country with only half the number of Physicians.
I'd wager that if this were to happen, that half of those doctors who would stay in that profession are either no good or are recent graduates and could not afford to do anything else.
LegalAlien
03-19-10, 16:41
Demarne
, I mean the AMA and AARP both endorse the health care reform, which are the largest doctor and retiree groups.
1. AMA does not represent all medical practitioners. AMA is only represented by the few white lab-coated sheep that attended Obama's speeches. There are 1,000's of medical practitioners that are not members of AMA. There are also 1,000's more medical practitioners that cancelled their AMA membership.
Obama's own cousin, a medical practitionar has stated publically that Obamacare is an abomonation.
There are reports of 1,000's of Primary Care practitioners threatening to exit the profession if/when this Bill is passed, because it will just not be economically viable for them to stay in business.
2. AARP board members and their DC lobbyists do not represent the majority of AARP members out there, they only represent their only liberal interests. Many 1,000's of AARP members (including myself) have ripped up their AARP membership cards in disgust and cancelled AARP membership. Maybe you should do some research about the surging growth in competing senior citizen organizations in the last year since AARP has come out in support of Obamacare.
That is the feeling on the ground. Not what Gibbles and his WH cronies up in DC keeps on feeding you and mixing in with the Kool Aid you have been drinking.
You are so caught up in Progressives rethoric, (that is all you are spewing here anyway!), that you have no idea what is happening out there in the real world.
By the way . . . . have you heard of the Tea Parties . . . . or is the only term you are familiar with, Teabaggers (per Olberman and others).
I heard somewhere that there was a poll of doctors that resulted in half stating that they would leave their profession. Imagine how good HC would be in this country with only half the number of Physicians.
...and 32 million more patients all at once.
Yeah. Great formula. This is why people wait 9 months to see the doctor in socialist medicine systems.
1. AMA does not represent all medical practitioners. .
Amen.
Saying that the AMA represents all medical practitioners, or even a significant proportion of them, is about as accurate as saying the same about the ABA representing all lawyers.
Both of those are shill organizations that are virtually worthless, and largely ignored by, their constituent professionals. I've been doing the law thing in one form or another for the last decade and have yet to meet any real, practicing attorney who gives a shit about the ABA or what it thinks. Ditto for docs I talk to with regard to the AMA.
I think you're on the wrong website.
...my work is done here
he's getting desperate, that's a good thing.
...
Anyone that thinks we can spend our way out of this (and not have inflation kick our ass on the way out) failed ECO101.
Not possible to have failed ECO101. Since ECO is no longer being taught (too difficult) along with Civics, Government, etc. (too dry and boring).
Obama is spending a lot of money, i agree with that but this is money that is needed to fix poor legislation adopted by the Obama administration.
Priceless dude, Priceless
I knew you would see the light.
Now even the Dems are blaming Obama for adopting poor legislation.
Thank God we can quite blaming Bush now! We can blame Sigmund Freud.... I think demarne meant inherited and not adopted.
I think you're on the wrong website.
So if I disagree with some gun laws of some states I shouldn't be a member of this site? Thats awful polarized. I own an AR just like you, and I am a member of this site to learn and gain info about the weapon system. The fact that I am standing up for my beliefs even when I know I'm in the minority should not be a gauge of whether or not I'm on the right website or not. If you can't respect that then you need to revaluate your perspective on life.
demarne-
I personally know 2 doctors that I shoot with that said if this "abortion" of a bill passes, they are going to turn off their pagers and work 9 to 5. And they tell me a lot of they're colleauges feel the same way.
That being said, what's Obama going to do when other docs decide to do the same thing or quit all together? Station troops at hospitals and force doctors to treat people? Its easy to force this bill on people when Congress won't be participating in it themselves.
That is 2 doctors, and i don't doubt there are more that feel the same way, but I seriously doubt that half the doctors in America would just up and leave there profession... Think about it, they have bills to pay and families to feed, they aren't going to just give up being a doctor. :rolleyes:
Obama himself even made this all about him by saying "if this doesn't pass, it could be the end of my Presidency". He DOES NOT care about the American people.
Really? I would like to see the quote and source for where he says that.
I heard somewhere that there was a poll of doctors that resulted in half stating that they would leave their profession. Imagine how good HC would be in this country with only half the number of Physicians.
I'd wager that if this were to happen, that half of those doctors who would stay in that profession are either no good or are recent graduates and could not afford to do anything else.
Heard somewhere? Yeah and all you guys are talking about facts? Not to mention if that was a poll taken by a non-neutral source they probably polled doctors in known republican states to inflate the numbers of the poll.
he's getting desperate, that's a good thing.
Desperate? Hardly. Annoyed by the polarity and stubbornness of the majority of people posting in this thread, I think so.
I am not going to lie, participating in this discussion has opened my eyes to how much obama is really planning to spend on some things which is worrisome, but I personally think this health care bill needs to pass. All of the nurses and doctors assistants I have talked to say that the paperwork system of insurance companies and medicare is so outrageous and complicated that it really takes up a lot of time and money. With the new health care plan paperwork could be regulated and made the same nationwide which would save a lot of heart ache and money. In my eyes, health care is not one of the things that should be privatized anymore. If you don't agree, that is fine.
I think it's more like half of primary care doctors would leave primary care practice, and try to get into a specialty.
Most medical students are going for specialties now and there is very low interest in primary care. That means the worst students that can't get residencies in anything else are the ones that are going to get relegated to primary care. Sure, some will do primary care because they want to, but the best will go into higher paying specialties. And the rest of the need for primary care will have to be filled by foreign educated doctors whose quality of education we have no control over.
Of course, medical school admissions should be expanded to fill the demand, but the pro-Obamacare AMA has historically been against that. Funny, huh?
If you think this is not the case you are mistaken. You think they can't get other jobs to feed their families? They can go into research, they can take staff positions at pharmaceutical or biotech companies. They can teach. My wife worked for a small marketing consulting firm that did work in the pharmaceutical industry and even they had a non-practicing MD on staff.
The bill is going to simplify things and make paperwork easier? Let's see here, the same government that wrote our tax code and makes us fill out incomprehensible forms every year? The system that is so complex we have to pay professionals to do it for us (or buy special software)?
Ever tried to apply to a Federal job? The instructions for the application process are pages and pages long and still don't make much sense. The job descriptions are a mile long but still don't give you any idea what the job really is.
The whole problem with "health care" is everyone wants an infinite amount of care without having to actually pay for it. The Dems lie through their teeth and demonize the insurance industry which runs at 3% profit margin. THREE PERCENT! It's pretty simple - to stay in business the premiums must be more than the claims. If people file more claims for more expensive services, the premiums are going to increase!
That's the BIG LIE in this whole debacle. The real reason health insurance costs keep going up is because people are demanding greater levels of higher cost care, and because hospitals have to give free care to non-payers and illegal aliens. All this bill will do is increase demand for services, and force insurance companies to absorb high risk people. So premiums will have to increase to cover the expense of the claims. Simple as that. Costs will not go down.
It's not the non-standard paperwork that is so much of a problem for doctors - that stuff actually is getting standardized without government interference and claims are moving to electronic systems. It's the fact that each insurance plan has different rules, different coverage levels, different pre-cert requirements, different structure (HMO, PPO, POS, Indemnity, etc.), different limits, different referral rules, etc.
To care for their patients doctors go through a maze of rules for each company and each plan. But how does the proposed bill change that? I really don't know the answer to that.
John_Wayne777
03-19-10, 22:41
So if I disagree with some gun laws of some states I shouldn't be a member of this site? Thats awful polarized.
Polarized?
You know what's really polarizing? Imposing ridiculous restrictions on the ownership and possession of a constitutionally protected means of self defense. It's particularly polarizing because these restrictions do NOTHING to discourage violent offenders in our society while doing a bangup job of keeping reasonable people with no malicious intent from having a ready means of self defense. We have people on this site who are stuck with little more than a pointy stick to defend themselves on a daily basis because yahoos around this nation have their little opinions about how gun laws aren't tight enough and their idiotic "blood in the streets!!" paranoia to keep the good guys at the mercy of scumbags. We have active duty military people who have a hard time getting necessary equipment because of ridiculous international arms control laws. We have manufacturers who can't ship so much as a spring that goes in a gun overseas without risking a felony conviction.
Screw that, and screw those who, in their magnificent wisdom, impose a death sentence on law abiding citizens by leaving them at the mercy of the criminal vermin who get all the breaks in our society.
I own an AR just like you, and I am a member of this site to learn and gain info about the weapon system.
I'm a moderator of the site to keep the stupidity to a minimum. Showing up on M4Carbine.net and extolling the virtues of gun control is stupidity to the maximum...so button it.
The fact that I am standing up for my beliefs even when I know I'm in the minority should not be a gauge of whether or not I'm on the right website or not. If you can't respect that then you need to revaluate your perspective on life.
Son, I don't know exactly how many days you've been here, but I'm certain it's entirely too few to be instructing others on reevaluation of perspective.
There are plenty of places on the web where idiots can lament that firearms laws aren't strict enough to their heart's content. If you feel the need to express the idea that the people on this site shouldn't have their guns (because the people on this site are the type of people who actually obey gun laws), do it somewhere else. Showing up with a tag line that could have come right out of the friggin' Brady Campaign is unsat and unwelcome.
I'm a moderator of the site to keep the stupidity to a minimum. Showing up on M4Carbine.net and extolling the virtues of gun control is stupidity to the maximum...so button it.
That's signature line material right there! :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.