More lies on Healthcare.

[wrightme43]

“Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,” the president told residents of the Garden State. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”
Obama earlier today, July 16, 2009



“ When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian hea der of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. [IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure ]


​

 

[Oscar54]

MORE LIES FROM THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY:

I knew that this misconstrued paragraph by the Enemies of the Public Option are portraying as outlawing private insurance would get regurgitated here.

But if anyone wants to take the time to read that statement in context they will see that it is not a nefarious act as portrayed.

What that paragraph says is that if you are currently enrolled in a private plan, you can stay in that plan, and that plan will be grandfathered in and can remain unchanged and not have to meet the minimum standards set forth in the health care bill for 5 years, but no new enrollments can occur after the day 1 of the new health care law if enacted. After 5 years it will have to conform to the new law.

So new private health insurance individual or group policies can be offered and selected after enactment of the new health care law, but they have to meet the minimum requirements. (Like no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and guaranteed renewals.)

This bogus issue just shows that you can be sure that anything that the insurance industry and their minions tells you is misconstrued and twisted to favor their position at best or an outright lie. They are against health care reform because the CEO’s are going to have to compete with a government plan the does not have to pay millions of dollars in salary to them to deny people the coverage they pay for.

 

[Cuba]

MORE LIES FROM THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY:

I knew that this misconstrued paragraph by the Enemies of the Public Option are portraying as outlawing private insurance would get regurgitated here.

But if anyone wants to take the time to read that statement in context they will see that it is not a nefarious act as portrayed.

What that paragraph says is that if you are currently enrolled in a private plan, you can stay in that plan, and that plan will be grandfathered in and can remain unchanged and not have to meet the minimum standards set forth in the health care bill for 5 years, but no new enrollments can occur after the day 1 of the new health care law if enacted. After 5 years it will have to conform to the new law.

So new private health insurance individual or group policies can be offered and selected after enactment of the new health care law, but they have to meet the minimum requirements. (Like no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and guaranteed renewals.)

This bogus issue just shows that you can be sure that anything that the insurance industry and their minions tells you is misconstrued and twisted to favor their position at best or an outright lie. They are against health care reform because the CEO’s are going to have to compete with a government plan the does not have to pay millions of dollars in salary to them to deny people the coverage they pay for.

This bill is rapidly spiralling out of control as the less extreme Democrats are crossing the isle to oppose it, which is refreshing, however my question to you would be how does drastically increasing the cost of healthcare (which is obvious when looking at this bill, and the CBO happens to concure: CQ Politics | CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs) constitute an effective method of decreasing the "crippling, unsustainable cost of healthcare", which was the reason for this legislation in the first place? How do we go from a solemn pledge to reduce the unsustainable costs of healthcare in this country (a cost neutral bill, which is an absurd and ironic statement given the pledge to decrease cost was routinely made in the same sentence) to a bill that constitutes the largest entitlement program and spending increase in the history of American healthcare? Since the administration cannot explain the math here, perhaps their supporters can lay out the specifics?

This is only another piece of the American bankruptcy puzzle. We were already at an unsustainable level of deficit spending thanks to Bush. We have not paid for the "stimulus" bill, which isn't working, but we certainly will have to in the future. Our economy is far worse than White House estimates and tax revenues far below their rediculous estimates that every economist on the planet said were grossly overoptimistic (so did I), we are now hearing about "stimulus" 2 since the first one has apparently "failed" even though we haven't spent it yet, and then there is the biggest piece, cap and tax, that will cost us trillions in additional taxes and lost productivity, and permanently destroy our competitiveness as a nation. China, India, and Mexico have all flatly refused to participate, leaving us to cut off our nose to spite our face. The massive tax increases being discussed do not come close to paying for all of this. The president's budget estimates called for the largest increase in debt and deficit spending in the history of the planet by a long shot, and that was his best case scenario that quite clearly is NOT the case.

I've been quiet lately because I am watching the swing in the polls, the democrats standing out against this recipe for disaster, the public beginning to realize that what we are doing doesn't make sense and the promisses being made are not to be believed, they change daily. We are slowly and steadily returning to reality I think, and the unchecked hijacking of the legislative process is coming to a close. This was a scary time for many people, and I don't believe it's over yet, and I'm not sure they won't be able to pay off these senators with enough tax dollars to pass this bill, but I do think we are seeing the beginning of the end for this unchecked power. The people are beginning to hold this administration accountable. I'm taking a back seat to watch with cautious optimism.

 

[Wavex]

It's funny to me that most Americans were fine to go to war and spend trillions of dollars for no reason, but when it comes to spending that kind of money to give proper health care to your own people, everybody freaks out... I believe that in this day and age, a World leading country like the USA should be able to help and take care of its own people.
Let them try it out... it won't be perfect, nothing is, but what's the point of taking every single decision that is made and twisting it to make it sound horrible? Why portray Obama like he was on a quest to bankrupt the country? Do you sincerely think that's what he is trying to do? how does this constant, "black and white", and systematic criticism help anything move forward?

On a lighter note:

 

[Soap]

You think you have problems, we have health care paid for in taxes and more and more people would rather pay for private stuff than use the crap we have, continuous cut-backs, massively understaffed but yet they tell us they are increasing funding...How does that work exactly then?

Oh that's right, it's gone from caring for the sick to how much money can we bloody make because the hospitals now have far more control to cut corners and the only ones that suffer are the patients, but that doesn't really matter much does it?

I do my very best to avoid the U.P. section but this gets my back up.

 

[Cuba]

It's funny to me that most Americans were fine to go to war and spend trillions of dollars for no reason, but when it comes to spending that kind of money to give proper health care to your own people, everybody freaks out... I believe that in this day and age, a World leading country like the USA should be able to help and take care of its own people.
Let them try it out... it won't be perfect, nothing is, but what's the point of taking every single decision that is made and twisting it to make it sound horrible? Why portray Obama like he was on a quest to bankrupt the country? Do you sincerely think that's what he is trying to do? how does this constant, "black and white", and systematic criticism help anything move forward?

On a lighter note:

See I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. The conservatives agree that we need to reform healthcare as well, it IS on a path of ever increasing costs, massive waste, and frivilous but extremely costly litigation and the subsequent malpratice insurance that increases every year. We agree that it would be great to provide better care for everyone, but the difference is I believe it should be done properly, and the administration thinks it should be done quickly.

This isn't a plan A or nothing scenario, but that is the picture being painted, as if our choices are between the current system that is (too expense, very inefficient, and does not provide adequate coverage for everyone) and the behemoth coming out of the house that will only add to the spending and create a much larger burden on everyone. When making massive permanent changes to the lives of everyone in the country I believe it is best to debate, to be bipartisan, to carefully plan and listen and respond to valid criticisms in order to come up with the best possible solution in a clear and transparent way. Ironically this was exactly what Obama promissed, but instead we are getting a bill written behind closed doors, in a completely partisan fashion, without debate, and ramming it through as quickly as possible to accomodate their personal vacation schedules. It's the same process that produced the "stimulus", which has not even come close to the results that we were promissed. This isn't what we were promissed, it is not producing the results we need, and the numbers are showing that. This bill will INCREASE the burden, not decrease it, which was the entire reason for it in the first place. That is the definition of irony. Here is another article on it:

House Democrats Use Key Votes to Rally Support to Health Care Plan, Despite Hurdles - Political News - FOXNews.com

"The votes came after Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, told Senate lawmakers Thursday that the legislation does not include the "fundamental changes" necessary to rein in federal health spending. If anything, he said, the legislation would increase costs."

This isn't what we need. The funny thing is I typically agree with Obama's goals, but his words are contradictory to his actions and the results of his legislation.

 

[Oscar54]

This bill is rapidly spiralling out of control....

Your response did not address my point that the proposed legislation does not forbid private insurance as is being hyped by opponents of the public option!

But if we are going to go off topic, it should not come as a surprise that it is not free. Our current system is not free and more expensive than any other system in the G8. Toyota opened a plant in Canada because Canada has national health care and we don't even though Alabama and other right to starve states have lower wages.

As long as the oligarchs in this country can control tax policy were the top 1/10th of 1% of taxpayers can earn more than the bottom 50% of taxpayers and pay less as a percentage of their income than a family earning $50,000 there will always be budget deficits, and they will always argue we can't afford anything except Corporate Socialism.

The fact that some of the Democrats are whores like the Republicans does not mean anything. We followed the pied piper of Reaganomics and near total deregulation and Republican dismantlement of the "New Deal" and its regulatory safe guards and here we are $10 Trillion in debt and nothing to show for it but a few Gazzillionaires and a military that can blow anybody else to kingdom come.

The Republicans controlled Congress for 14 of the last 16 years and the white house for the last 8 and never produced or even attempted a balanced budget and crashed the economy of the world and Obama has to fix it in the first 5 months of his presidency or he is a complete failure.

Please...

 

[Oscar54]

You think you have problems, we have health care paid for in taxes and more and more people would rather pay for private stuff than use the crap we have, continuous cut-backs, massively understaffed but yet they tell us they are increasing funding...How does that work exactly then?

Oh that's right, it's gone from caring for the sick to how much money can we bloody make because the hospitals now have far more control to cut corners and the only ones that suffer are the patients, but that doesn't really matter much does it?

I do my very best to avoid the U.P. section but this gets my back up.

I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Doctors in the British health care system actually work for the Government?

These other countries systems in the EU use private doctors and hospitals but a publicly funded or mandated private standardized insurance policy?

My brother lives in Holland and has to by law pay for insurance through payroll deduction, but has health and dental and can see what ever doctor he wants and it is very economical.

 

[Oscar54]

See I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. The conservatives agree that we need to reform healthcare as well, it IS on a path of ever increasing costs, massive waste, and frivilous but extremely costly litigation and the subsequent malpratice insurance that increases every year. We agree that it would be great to provide better care for everyone, but the difference is I believe it should be done properly, and the administration thinks it should be done quickly.

This isn't a plan A or nothing scenario, but that is the picture being painted, as if our choices are between the current system that is (too expense, very inefficient, and does not provide adequate coverage for everyone) and the behemoth coming out of the house that will only add to the spending and create a much larger burden on everyone. When making massive permanent changes to the lives of everyone in the country I believe it is best to debate, to be bipartisan, to carefully plan and listen and respond to valid criticisms in order to come up with the best possible solution in a clear and transparent way. Ironically this was exactly what Obama promissed, but instead we are getting a bill written behind closed doors, in a completely partisan fashion, without debate, and ramming it through as quickly as possible to accomodate their personal vacation schedules. It's the same process that produced the "stimulus", which has not even come close to the results that we were promissed. This isn't what we were promissed, it is not producing the results we need, and the numbers are showing that. This bill will INCREASE the burden, not decrease it, which was the entire reason for it in the first place. That is the definition of irony. Here is another article on it:

House Democrats Use Key Votes to Rally Support to Health Care Plan, Despite Hurdles - Political News - FOXNews.com

"The votes came after Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, told Senate lawmakers Thursday that the legislation does not include the "fundamental changes" necessary to rein in federal health spending. If anything, he said, the legislation would increase costs."

This isn't what we need. The funny thing is I typically agree with Obama's goals, but his words are contradictory to his actions and the results of his legislation.

The Conservatives are only interested in Health Care Reform that allows the Insurance, Pharmaceutical, and Hospital Corporations to remain in control, you need to look no farther than Medicare Part D and the donut whole that serves no one but the pharmaceutical and insurance companies as proof.

And the Republicans have absolutely no interest at bipartisan compromise because they know that the only way they can make a case for reelection and possible control of Congress or White House is to force the Democrats fail by any means necessary, so they can say "Ya, we made it bad, but the Democrats made it worse.", just like their leader Rush Limbaugh stated!

 

[Cuba]

The Conservatives are only interested in Health Care Reform that allows the Insurance, Pharmaceutical, and Hospital Corporations to remain in control, you need to look no farther than Medicare Part D and the donut whole that serves no one but the pharmaceutical and insurance companies as proof.

And the Republicans have absolutely no interest at bipartisan compromise because they know that the only way they can make a case for reelection and possible control of Congress or White House is to force the Democrats fail by any means necessary, so they can say "Ya, we made it bad, but the Democrats made it worse.", just like their leader Rush Limbaugh stated!

I completely disagree with you. Bush is not the one in the charge nor is he the one that is attempting to ram through a piece of legislation that is in direct contradiction to his own stated goal of reducing the cost burden. Whatever horrendous perceived injury you have endured in the past is no excuse for what is happening now, nor is it relevant in this discussion. You are not advancing the discussion, you are taking away from it.

What we are discussing is the current healthcare bill, not your personal hatred of conservatives. Your generalization of roughly half of the population of the US as being Rush Limbaugh is absurd, as is your belief that every republican in office is purely interested in increasing the profits of insurance providers is equally so. One would merely look at the campaign donation figures to see that Democrats receive the same bribes (er, campaign contributions) from the health insurance industry to know that. And yes republicans will make some decisions based on reelection, just as democrats will. That's sort of the point, but I think it's safe to say we'd rather see them be constructive and produce results by working together rather than resorting to partisan politics. There is nothing wrong with standing against something you believe is wrong, and virtually every conservative in the country, as well as many moderate democrats, believe that the levels of spending especially during this recession, are wrong.

Your black and white fantasy land of blind faith that anything Obama does or says is honest and the correct thing to do, free of political influence and above discussion, while anything any republican says is an evil lie and made for purely political reasons is simply delusional. Both have lied, both have made and will make decisions that will negatively effect us, and both must be watched and held accountable for their actions and the results of those actions. It's a fact that I don't believe is debatable by anyone here besides yourself.

But back to the topic at hand, the treatment of this particular bill, as well as what we saw on the "stimulus" bill, is in essence the same form of cowboy politics that led us to Iraq and the intense divisions seen in America today. The polls now show that more than 50% of Americans are opposed to it, and I don't have the figure but a significant majority say that this needs to be discussed openly and debated, not rushed through as quickly as possible. It is too important to be rushed. Are you saying that you disagree, and feel that Obama is correct in breaking his promisses of transparency and bipartisanship, as well as the promise of REDUCING the crippling cost of healthcare by instead shoving through a piece of unilateral closed door legislation that will INCREASE these costs, thus directly contradicting it's very purpose? And if so, why?

We were all in agreement, republicans and democrats, that our healthcare system does need to be reformed. We were in agreement that the costs were becoming unsustainable and that we must make the system more efficient. We were in agreement that, in Obama's own words, this issue is a "ticking timebomb" because we will not be able to afford it. Yet somehow the promise of reducing this cost (which I support) has become a promise to further increase it. THAT is the issue.

 

[Soap]

I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Doctors in the British health care system actually work for the Government?

These other countries systems in the EU use private doctors and hospitals but a publicly funded or mandated private standardized insurance policy?

My brother lives in Holland and has to by law pay for insurance through payroll deduction, but has health and dental and can see what ever doctor he wants and it is very economical.

Yes, the NHS is the National Health Service, which is government, the Dentists are also NHS but you have to pay to use them, you also have to pay for perscription medication, but you aren't paying for the medecine, it's a donation to the NHS, but wait a minute, you're already paying for them with your taxes! If you go to Scotland you don't. (You may still have to pay for dentists but I'm not sure)

Our hospitals are becoming more like private businesses than government run with the way they manage their money.

I'll say no more as I appear to be stealing the thread away from the OP so I apologise.

 

[Wavex]

We were all in agreement, republicans and democrats, that our healthcare system does need to be reformed. We were in agreement that the costs were becoming unsustainable and that we must make the system more efficient. We were in agreement that, in Obama's own words, this issue is a "ticking timebomb" because we will not be able to afford it. Yet somehow the promise of reducing this cost (which I support) has become a promise to further increase it. THAT is the issue.

What is the current cost of healthcare in the US?

What will be the cost of healthcare in the US after Obama's plan is put into action?

I assume you have these numbers since you keep saying the new plan will be more than the current one. I'd like the see your numbers and where they come from please.

 

[wrightme43]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada![/ame]

 

[Tailgate]

YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!

Wrightme43---I might be against universal health care too, but this video was ridiculous. IT'S already THE SAME (if not worse) here if you, supposedly, have a "hurt wrist" and can't wait and elect to go to emergency because it's after hours. OF COURSE, somebody complaining about a 'hurt wrist" is going to be low on the triage scale! I thought that the guy doing this amateur video was more about getting airtime than anything else. It's a stupid video. I watched about 2 mins and couldn't take it anymore.

 

[Cuba]

What is the current cost of healthcare in the US?

What will be the cost of healthcare in the US after Obama's plan is put into action?

I assume you have these numbers since you keep saying the new plan will be more than the current one. I'd like the see your numbers and where they come from please.

In 2007 the total expenditure was $2.2T, making it 16.2% of total GDP. It rose 6.1% over the previous year, far outpacing inflation. The federal government paid for over 46% of this. The costs of the "Obama" plan are unknown (which is part of the reason I believe we should perhaps figure that out before voting on it...), although the CBO has announced that the current plan would increase these costs, not decrease them. The CBO released their findings which have had a damning effect on the proposed legislation due to the fact that we were told by the president that the reason for his healthcare reform, the central pivital problem that demanded our attention immediately lest we face economic disaster down the road, was that the costs were too high.

The problem the administration is facing is that their plan does not solve the cost issue. It ignores the malpractice issue completely, and rather than improving efficiency (some experts believe that 30% of healthcare spending is unnecessary) it simply increases both the number of people in the current system and the amount of money we all pay into that system through massive increases in taxes. Taxing our healthcare benefits seems to be extremely likely as this plan continues to grow. Obama's already broken pledge not to tax the middle class is being tested here. Recently he was actively talking about taxing these "luxurious" healthcare benefits, but then the unions told him to stop because they have extremely large healthcare benefits packages and this would mean THEY would actually have to pay back in. Obama then immediately proposed a loophole so that his union supporters wouldn't have to pay, just every nonunion citizen that gets a decent healthcare benefit from work. That didn't go over so well. The middle class is being screwed here, they will be forced to help pay for all of this "free" healthcare going to the poor, along with the "rich" which mainly consist of small businesses.

The other plan they have for curbing some of the cost is to just pay doctors and hospitals a lot less. The "public option" is a mandate, meaning doctors and hospitals can't refuse to accept it no matter what the government sets the rates at. So hospitals, which employ a VERY large segment of our population, will be forced to accept far less payment for services given to someone with the public plan. This means they can either a) drastically increase the costs for all private insurance providers to make up the difference (this is the reason private insurance would die btw, they simply could not compete. Employers would either see their cost go through the roof or switch to the public plan) or b) they can stop making investments, lay off vast numbers of people, shut down less profitable divisions and service offerings, etc.

The point being, there are A LOT of problems that have yet to be resolved, and the current plan looks as though it will increase the costs overall, increase the cost to the middleclass and the rich (out of our pockets), potentially kill off private insurance companies and the choices we will have, and cost vast numbers of jobs for the healthcare industry, etc. etc. It doesn't matter which view you take on this issue, these problems need to be addressed before any plan is put forth to vote on. It is wreckless to proceed this way, on an unrealistic and arbitrary timeline. We cannot afford to get this wrong, we will not get a second chance (like stimulus 2).

The president himself is now actively engaged in fearmongering over this issue, calling these concerns (which are coming from all sides including his own) as unworthy of being answered. He is continuing to paint the picture that if we don't pass this plan, before August vacations, we are doomed. That there is no other choice, that we will go bankrupt, that our ecomony will collapse. They are handling this in exactly the same way as the "stimulus", which I think at this point even the more liberal members here can agree was not the best solution to the problem at hand. It was written in haste and signed before reading, and the results so far have been dismal. I'm not obstructing reform, I am demanding that we take the time to get it right.

 

[Wavex]

In 2007 the total expenditure was $2.2T, making it 16.2% of total GDP. It rose 6.1% over the previous year, far outpacing inflation. The federal government paid for over 46% of this. The costs of the "Obama" plan are unknown (which is part of the reason I believe we should perhaps figure that out before voting on it...), although the CBO has announced that the current plan would increase these costs, not decrease them.

Do you have a link to where the CBO announced that the new plan was going to be more than the current plan? I'd like to see their justification... just "announcing" that it's going to be more expensive than the already ridiculously high cost (and huge yearly increase you mentioned), does not mean anything. If you're going to state something that important (them and you), it'd be a good idea to have supporting data first.

I'm not obstructing reform, I am demanding that we take the time to get it right.

First, people voted Obama in office, so:

Obama demands > Cuba demands

:rof:

But seriously though, how much debate is needed? Per what you're stating (i.e. yearly increase of 6+% if we keep going with the current system), making a change is urgent right? very urgent indeed... You and I both know that if we want to "debate" every point of the new plan, the debate will never end... you may want to debate, but we all know the right wing doesn't want to "debate" the plan, they want to shut it down because it is "socialized medicine" and "we all know what socialized medicine" means... right? it means the end of AMERICA!!! lol

Again, I trust he will do the best he can... it's not going to be perfect, but believe it or not, even if you could write the plan, it would not be perfect either! :thumbup:

 

[Cuba]

Do you have a link to where the CBO announced that the new plan was going to be more than the current plan? I'd like to see their justification... just "announcing" that it's going to be more expensive than the already ridiculously high cost (and huge yearly increase you mentioned), does not mean anything. If you're going to state something that important (them and you), it'd be a good idea to have supporting data first.



First, people voted Obama in office, so:

Obama demands > Cuba demands

:rof:

But seriously though, how much debate is needed? Per what you're stating (i.e. yearly increase of 6+% if we keep going with the current system), making a change is urgent right? very urgent indeed... You and I both know that if we want to "debate" every point of the new plan, the debate will never end... you may want to debate, but we all know the right wing doesn't want to "debate" the plan, they want to shut it down because it is "socialized medicine" and "we all know what socialized medicine" means... right? it means the end of AMERICA!!! lol

Again, I trust he will do the best he can... it's not going to be perfect, but believe it or not, even if you could write the plan, it would not be perfect either! :thumbup:

I already posted this to this thread, but here it is again:
CQ Politics | CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs

The point I am making is that the stated goal is to decrease the cost and the current solution is to increase the cost. I believe this deserves discussion, this is not a minor point, it is THE point according to the president himself.

Your point, I believe, is that we shouldn't debate it due to urgency. We should instead accept a plan that is in direct contradiction to the problem at hand. That we should make the wrong decision quickly, rather than take the time and effort to make the right one. Again, we won't get a second shot at this, so I strongly disagree with your reasoning. You have faith that he will get it right, I believe that he had nothing to do with the drafting of this bill and that all evidense points to the fact that the congressional democrats have gotten it wrong. They have increased rather than decreased the cost.

Your minor swipe at me is interesting, since the president is a public servent elected to represent the people (in theory, to respond and act upon OUR demands), not issue to issue mandates that are not supported by the people, as he is doing now. The polls show that less than 50% of the public supports this plan. What we asked for was a reduction in the burden of healthcare costs and what we have been given is a massive, permanent expansion of those costs and a yet to be seen reduction in our choice in the matter.

 

[Cuba]

And the argument that there are a bunch of republicans planning to open a debate simply to kill the reform isn't a great one. First off if nothing passes the media will paint a picture of evil obstructionists destroying our utopia or some such thing- they and the president are already trying this and it sounds like you're buying. The people want reform, they want reduced costs, and they won't be happy if they get nothing but political games- it will hurt ALL incumbents. Secondly, to argue that this is too important to discuss is an absurd statement. It REQUIRES that it be discussed, that it be CAREFULLY planned. This isn't a crisis, it's a problem, but has been for some time. Nothing has changed that demands immediate action. We have time to get it right. And lastly, it isn't the republicans holding this up, it's the moderate democrats. I don't think you're arguing that THEIR plan is to hurt the democrats, are you? They are making the same arguments that I pose here, and with damn good reason. This isn't just the huge economic impact at stake, it's the health of every single American we're talking about here. You don't rush that to make your vacation schedule, you just don't. If anyone is playing politics, it's the White House, not those that want the time to get this right.

 

[Wavex]

I don't think Obama's main goal is to reduce the costs of healthcare, I think his main goal is to offer better healthcare for more American people. If he can do that and save cost at the same time, great, but if it was as easy said than done, it would already be in place right? It's going to be a challenge, and expecting to pay lower costs for a better system is counter-intuitive anyway...

There is no right or wrong answer in politics, there are only decisions made based on assumptions, and these decisions will either yield the expected outcome or they won't. In hindsight it's always easy to point fingers and say "he was wrong and I was right", but the bottom line is that while you may disagree with Obama's politic, while your assumptions may be different than his, at the end of the day, he was elected into office by the people, because people trusted him to do a good job. So now let him do that job

So he is rushing his plan because it's urgent, and he doesn't want to listen to every single critique out there... what's the big deal? I wouldn't want to listen to ppl like you all day long either, and you're probably one of the nice ones :rof: If you want to make these big decisions, run for office and see how many ppl vote for your ideas on how to fix the US...

 

[Cuba]

I don't think Obama's main goal is to reduce the costs of healthcare

Really? Well I guess he's been lying to everyone for the past year then, eh?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDQCvB-73TU]YouTube - Obama Opens Health Care Summit[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggVSAPt-HY]YouTube - President Obama's Three Principles for Real Health Care Reform[/ame]

The cost is his #1 reason. It is a pillar of his entire economic plan.

Nancy Pelosi agrees. "It's about cost and bringing that cost down."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvJmGHoy04]YouTube - President Obama on Health Care Reform: Urgency and Determination[/ame]

So what are you saying? You didn't believe him? You think he doesn't believe in what he's been saying all along, that his real motives are not what he has stated hundreds of times? We can agree on that I suppose, but passing something incomplete is wreckless. Passing something directly contradictory to your clearly stated reasons and goals will be political suicide. What do you think will happen when it becomes clear that this is a massive increase in cost burden on an already unsustainable system? Yes it is very easy to point out mistakes in hindsight when they are so glaring, that's why you would hope to make the right decisions up front.